HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8604 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.230 of 2011 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein married the petitioner on 17.11.2005 as per the Muslim rites and, after marriage, they lived happily. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other accused started harassing the 2nd respondent mentally and physically for additional dowry. Unable to bear their harassment, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, who referred the same to Panjagutta P.S., Hyderabad for investigation and report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted the following points for consideration: 1) Even prior to the present complaint, the petitioner filed O.P.No.106 of 2010 on the file of the Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. 2) The allegations made against the petitioner in the present complaint are vague in nature. 3) The 2nd respondent and her relatives tried to kill the petitioner, for which the petitioner already lodged a complaint with the police which is also under investigation. As far as the first point is concerned, filing of an application for restitution of conjugal rights prior to filing of the present private complaint cannot be a ground to quash the first information report. In so far as the second point is concerned, this Court cannot decide either the falsity or the truthfulness of the complaint by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it is the duty of the Investigating Agency to find out the same. With regard to the offence under Section 307 of IPC, when this Court questioned, the learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner went to the house of the parents’ of the 2nd respondent and asked her to come and join him to lead happy marital life, they tried to kill the petitioner, which also clearly indicates that there were some disputes between them. Filing of a complaint against the 2nd respondent by the petitioner is also not a ground to quash the first information report. Further, the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, if the petitioner apprehends arrest in the hands of police, he is at liberty to file an application before the Sessions Judge concerned seeking anticipatory bail, and on filing of such application, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to consider the application favourably, since the offences arose out of matrimonial disputes. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 20th September, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No.8604 of 2011 (Disposed of) 20th September, 2011 cbs