JUDGMENT

G.N. RAY, J.- Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 14-10-1993 in Crl. M.P. No. 1572 of 1993. By the aforesaid order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings issued in Crl. M.P. No. 1626 of 1993 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, XIth Court, Secunderabad.

3. The relevant facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant was married to one Shri V. Raja Rao under the Special Marriage Act on 18-3-1983 and the appellant and her husband lived together up to 16-11-1983. Thereafter, the husband of the appellant went to Saudi Arabia and was working there. He returned in February 1986, but on the ill-advice of the respondents, the husbands attitude towards the appellant changed and the said husband started consuming liquor heavily. The husband of the appellant thereafter went to Dubai and returned to India some time in September 1988 and after a short stay for about seven days, he again left for Saudi Arabia and returned to India in January 1989. The husband of the appellant on every occasion of his return from the Gulf countries, brought valuable articles including household items and ornaments. The respondents used to take away most of those items from the petitioners husband forcibly. On 15-11-1989, the appellants husband attempted to commit suicide and ultimately died on 19-11-1989. After the death of the husband of the appellant, the respondents took away all the articles belonging to the appellant and her husband by breaking open the lock of the door. The appellant filed a complaint on 12-6-1990 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the XIth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The said complaint was lodged under Section 395 IPC and also under Section 6 of the Dowry Act against 8 persons including the respondents. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate XIth Court forwarded the said complaint for investigation and report by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On such direction, the Station House Officer, Police Station Bowenpally, Secunderabad, registered FIR No. 106 of 1990 on 18-6-1990 and commenced investigation. The police conducted a search at the residences of Shri V. Chalapathy Rao, father of the appellants husband and Smt B. Sarojini Devi and seized certain articles found in their houses. Another search was conducted by the police at the residence of Shri V. Srihari, but no article was seized. The police, however, submitted a final report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate XIth Court to the effect that no offence under Section 395 IPC had been committed and the articles alleged in the complaint were not the dowry articles. On 11-2-1991, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 173 and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the police had not properly investigated the case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered to post the said complaint for enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The appellants case is that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the husband of the petitioner, while working at Saudi Arabia had purchased various articles during the span of six years. Because of the ill-treatment and harassment of the appellant in the hands of respondents, the husband of the petitioner became frustrated and attempted to commit suicide and ultimately died. After the death of the husband, the respondents broke open the lock and took away all the valuable articles mentioned in the complaint petition from the house where the appellant used to live with the deceased husband. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the facts revealed from the investigation, prima facie found that A-1 to A-6 have committed offence under Section 395 IPC. Accordingly, a c