HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4934 OF 2007 DATE:30-09-2010 BETWEEN Mohammed Khan @ Abrar …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4934 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-A.7 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.271 of 2007 pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 498-A, 325 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even according to the allegations of the complaint, the marriage of the complainant with the first accused was performed on 6.10.1996, that on 23.6.1999 the complainant was necked out from the house of her in-laws and since then she has been residing at her parents house. The present complaint was filed on 22.9.2004 and police after investigation laid the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The punishment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is three years; punishment for the offence under Section 323 IPC is one year; and the punishment for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and therefore, the learned senior counsel contends that the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation against the petitioner. Further the petitioner is only the brother of A.1, who has been falsely implicated and therefore, allowing the impugned proceedings to continue as against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further contended that the case registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 in C.C.No.392 of 2006 was ended in acquittal on 5.8.2010 and therefore, the present proceedings if allowed to continue is nothing but harassment and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. The complaint allegation and the contents of the charge sheet discloses that from 1.3.1999 onwards, A.1 to A.6 started beating the complainant; that on 5.3.1999 she was beaten by the accused with legs by kicking upon her stomach and back; that she sustained grievous injuries; that she was shifted to Uday Clinkc, Nampally, wherein she was treated as inpatient till 23.3.1999; that later she was shifted to Owaisi Research Centre and Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein she had underwent treatment as inpatient till 23.6.1999; that from the said hospital, she was sent back to her parents house by snatching Mangal Sutra from her neck by A.1 and A.2 and since then she has been residing at her parents house. The complaint as such was lodged on 23.8.2004 before the Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, police laid the charge sheet. In the entire complaint, it is alleged that A.2 and A.3 instigated A.1 to harass the complainant and that A.1 to A.6 harassed her by beating. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation as the punishment prescribed is one year for the offence under Section 323 IPC; three years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; and two years for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, if the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner, it is nothing but harassment to the petitioner and abuse of process of law. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed as against the petitioner. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 Tsr.