IMPORTANT POINT
General and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution under Section 498-A IPC without new evidence.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Muddu Vijay, learned senior counsel appearing for Aequitasjuris Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the third respondent in both the writ petitions and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions are seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 668 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of Cr. No. 632 of 2008 on the file of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. The facts, succinctly, are that the third respondent filed a complaint before the Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, against her husband - Dabeeruddin Khaja and also the petitioners in both the writ petitions for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was registered as a case in Cr. No. 632 of 2008. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance for the aforesaid offences only against the husband of the third respondent, vide C.C. No. 333 of 2008. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, the final report filed by the police disclose that there was no prima facie case against them. It is the further case that after the first charge sheet was filed, the police filed an additional charge sheet arraying the petitioners in both the writ petitions as accused Nos. 2 to 11 vide C.C. No. 668 of 2010. Hence these two writ petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings in the above Calendar Case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are non-resident Indians and that though the final report filed by the police at the initial stage does not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners, but subsequently due to the pressure exerted by the third respondent and for the reasons best known to them, the police filed an additional charge sheet, which is contrary to law and abuse of process of law. The additional charge sheet was filed two years after filing of the first charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after registration of the FIR, the third respondent herself filed O.P. No. 1421 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad and obtained an order on 10.11.2011 dissolving the marriage between her and her husband Dabeeruddin Khaja. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions. [Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma, 2021 (5) SCC 524, Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (7) SCC 667, Anil Khadkiwala vs. State, 2019 SCC Online SC 941, Pritam Ashok Sadaphule vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 (11) SCC 769 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh, 1975 (3) SCC 706]

5. The second respondent-State filed counter affidavit in W.P. No. 6403 of 2015 denying the various allegations made by the petitioners contending inter alia that at the time of filing of the charge sheet, the investigating officer did not examine the independent witnesses as they were not available at that time and after the first charge sheet was filed, the investigating officer examined the independent witnesses in the case and they corroborated with the contents of the FIR. After completion of investigation the investigating officer filed the additional charge sheet against the petitioners in both the writ petitions, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 668 of 2010 and the same was clubbed with C.C. No. 333 of 2008. Therefore, it is prayed that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that all the petitioners including the husband of the third respondent demanded Rs.10.00 lak