Subsequent events, such as divorce and remarriage, can be considered in determining the abuse of process of law and the justification for quashing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking quash of proceedings in Crime No. 196 of 2015 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.M.Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Sri Ch.Venkata Raman, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and wife of the 1st Petitioner/A.1. She lodged a Complaint with the Police alleging that the 1st petitioner/A.1 and Petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3, who are the parents of A.1 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by making illegal demands of additional dowry. Further, she stated that her marriage was performed in President Hotel, Mysore, on 03.06.2009 with the 1st petitioner/A.1 and their marriage was consummated on 07.06.2009 and they both lived at their house in Visakhapatnam for one week and thereafter shifted to Mysore. In the month of August, 2010, the 1st petitioner/A.1 met with an accident and received grievous injuries, he was under treatment for one and half months and he underwent surgery on spine. The 2nd respondent/wife looked after the 1st petitioner with all care. Further, she stated that from the beginning, her husband (1st petitioner) was having the habit of consuming alcohol. As the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner shifted to other Companies in Bengaluru in the year 2012, they shifted their family to Bengaluru and resided in a rented house. Further, she stated that the 1st petitioner/A.1 used to abuse the 2nd respondent for not bringing additional dowry as a result, he lost the love and affection of his parents and gradually started demand of dowry. Further, she stated that on 10.08.2015, the 1st petitioner/A.1 insisted to ask her father to arrange Rs.10.00 lakhs to purchase a flat and she politely refused the same. On that, he became wild, abused and assaulted, and tried to kill her and as a result, she sustained bleeding injuries. The 2nd respondent informed the same to her younger brother over the phone and immediately, he came and took her to the hospital in Bengaluru. She apprehended danger to her life, if she goes to Mysore or Bengaluru to join with the 1st petitioner/A.1, who subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally making illegal demands of dowry. Based on the complaint dated 17.08.2015, the police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 196 of 2015 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Sections 498- A and 324 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie case against all the accused regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offences, A.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, released on bail. At the fag end of the investigation, the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the above crime.

4. Fulminating the complaint allegations as false and motivated, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would firstly argue that the complaint allegations even if accepted to be true and correct, the subsequent events should be looked into. Further, he would submit that after filing this criminal petition, the de facto complainant filed an additional affidavit along with the material papers. She filed FCOP No. 536 of 2016, on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce dated 24.01.2017 and thereafter, they have been living separately. Further, he would submit