HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3777 OF 2006 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Mohammed Sadiqquddin Mohammadi …..Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3777 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.276 of 2006 of Langerhouse Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) There is no dispute about relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. After marriage, they went to U.A.E and lived there for some time and came back to India. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging the above said offences and the Magistrate forwarded the same to Langerhouse Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the private complaint, which is basis for issuing F.I.R does not make out required ingredients for the above said offences. 3) In para-2 of the complaint, it was specifically stated by the 2nd respondent that at the time of marriage, “on demand” of the accused, parents of the complainant gave 2½ tulas of gold ornaments and some other customary Jahez articles, clothes etc., to the accused. It is also alleged that the accused used to beat the complainant mercilessly and used to abuse her in most filthy language and ill treat her and that about one year back, the accused beat the complainant mercilessly and necked her out of the house and threatened that he would not return the amount taken by him. It is further alleged that accused was always saying that the complainant was not a suitable match to him and that her parents did not give any dowry etc., to him. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even as per allegations in the complaint there are no allegation of demand for dowry or additional dowry. At the same time, there is some reference to dowry not being given by parents of the complainant to the accused. Therefore, this is not a case which can be thrown out at the threshold. 4) Secondly, according to the complainant, she used to work as beautician at Sharjah and used to earn 1200 Dirams per month for about five years. It is her case that the accused took about 70,000 Dirams of U.A.E saying that he would return the same to her in India in Indian currency. According to complainant, the accused at the time of necking her out of house, threatened that he would not return the amount taken by him. 5) Thirdly, as per allegations in the complaint, there is demand for presents like 2½ tulas of gold ornaments and some other customary Jahez articles, clothes etc., by the accused and he received the same after demand from her parents. Having regard to above allegations in the complaint of 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out by 2nd respondent and that there are no ingredients made out for the above said offences. 6) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that false case was foisted by the 2nd respondent against him having regard to previous civil proceedings in O.S. No.4449 of 2004 on the file of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, O.P. No.990 of 2005 on the file of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S. No.25 of 2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Whether the complaint is false or not has to be decided by the investigating officer after thorough investigation. During investigation, the petitioner also can approach the investigating officer and put forth his defences if any for the complaint. At this stage, I do not find any valid and legal reasons for quashing F.I.R. 7) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2009 KSH