HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2993 of 2008 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by A-2 to A-6 in CC No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant presented a report dated 19-07-2007 before the Station House Officer, South Zone WPS, Hyderabad, alleging inter alia that her marriage with Sd. Afzal (A-1) was performed on 31-07-2003 at Sayeed Function Hall, Opp: Electricity Office, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad, according to Muslim Law customs and rights and that after the marriage, she joined with her husband (A-1) for conjugal association. Her husband (A-1), father-in-law Sd. Tajuddin (A-2), sisters-in-law namely, Sd. Rahmat Sultana (A-4) and Sd.Farath Sultana (A5), brothers-in-law Sd. Sajid (A-3) and Sd. Javeed (Zaveed) (A6) harassed her on the ground of additional dowry. It is further alleged in the report that A-2, A-4 and A-5 relieved her gold ornaments and retained with them. Various instances of harassment meted out by her in the hands of A-2 to A5, have been stated in the report. The Station House Officer, South Zone WPS, Hyderabad, registered a case in crime No. 179/2007 U/Sec. 498-A, 406 r/w. 34 IPC and Sec. 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued First Information Report. After due investigation, the Inspector of Police, South Zone WPS, filed a charge sheet before the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as CC No. 10/2008. Hence this quash petition by A2 to A6 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Notice to the respondent No.2-Defacto complainant came to be ordered on 09-06-2008. Though respondent No.2 entered appearance through her counsel, when the petition came up for hearing on 08.07.2010, but there was no representation on her behalf and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 1 to 5, the petition was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for Orders’. Thus the petition came to be listed on this day under the caption ‘for Orders’. Even on this day also there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 joined her husband (A-1) and lead marital life at Riyadh of Saudi Arabia and no part of cause of action arose in India and therefore, the report filed by her attributing harassment on the ground of additional dowry demand by the petitioners is wholly unsustainable. A further submission has been made that the petitioners 2 and 3, who has been arrayed as A-3 and A4, are no way concerned with the marital life of the defacto complainant – respondent No.2 with her husband (A-1). Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner No.5, who has been arrayed as A-6 in the above C.C. is not a member of the family of the husband of the defacto complainant in which case no ingredients of sec. 498-A IPC are attributable to A-6. 5. I have gone through the report presented by the defacto complainant- respondent No.2 before the police and also the charge sheet submitted by the police after due investigation. On perusal of the charge sheet, it appears the defacto complainant has narrated the instances of harassment attributable to petitioners 1 to 4/A2 to A5. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against A2 to A5 in exercise of powers conferred U/sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 6. So far as the petitioner No.5/A-6 is concerned, except stating that he is the person, who mediated the marriage between the defacto complainant and A-1, no specific instances of harassment are attributed to him. Therefore, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.5/A-6 in CC No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, amount to abuse of process of court. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner No.5/A-6 in CC No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. So far as Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4/A-2 to A5 are concerned, the petition is dismissed. ____________ 15-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2993 of 2008 Dated: 15-07-2010 Mjl/*