ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking quash of proceedings in C.C. No.6198 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. The petitioners are A-2 to A-5 in the above C.C. No.6198 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

3. Heard Sri S. Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of A-1. She lodged a report with the police alleging that A-1 and the petitioners herein, who are A-2 to A-5, who are the parents of A-1 and sister of A-1 along with A-5, who is the elder of the marriage, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by making illegal demands of dowry. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.23 of 2018 was registered in Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against all the accused regarding their complicity in commission of the said offences, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no specific allegations made against A-2 to A-4, who are the parents and sister of A-1, regarding commission of any such offences against the de facto complainant and that all the allegations made by the de facto complainant are only against A-1, who is her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the marriage between A-1 and the de facto complainant was dissolved long back by a decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in M.O.P. No.103 of 2018 as per decree passed on 18.04.2019. Therefore, he would contend that there is no marital relationship between the de facto complainant and A-1 and as such the present prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not maintainable against any of the petitioners. Therefore, he would submit that no case is made out against the petitioners, who are A-2 to A-4 and A-5 regarding commission of the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that A-5 is not a family member of A-1 and he is only a marriage elder and as such prosecution of A-5 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not maintainable. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the said charge sheet against the petitioners, who are A-2 to A-5.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the divorce decree was granted on 18.04.2019 whereas the present report was lodged by the de facto complainant long prior to the said decree, on 29.07.2018. Therefore, the subsequent decree of divorce will not come in the way of prosecution to prosecute the petitioners for the offences committed by the husband of the de facto complainant and his relatives prior to the date of granting of the said decree and when they are living together as wife and husband and when their marital relationship was subsisting at that time. In support if his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Mohd. Rafiuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 188 = (2015) 2 ALD (Cri) 520 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Sathar Vs. Aneesha, 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that there are specific allegations made against A-2 to A-4, who are the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant regarding the harassment caused by them to the de facto complainant with illegal demand for dowry both physically and