ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the Calendar Case No.317 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 494 and 506 of IPC r/w Sections 34 and 109 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The facts are in narrow compass:

2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Bheemunipatnam under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 494 and 506 of the IPC r/w Sections 34 and 109 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City under Section 156 Clause (3) of Cr.P.C., on such reference, the police has registered the crime as FIR No.720 of 2015 and filed charge sheet accordingly. The said crime was numbered as Calendar Case No.317 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam. The parties are referred as per the cause title in the present Criminal Petition.

3. The petitioner No.2 herein is Mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent and mother of the 1st petitioner herein and accused Nos.4 and 6 are sister-in-laws of the 2nd respondent herein and the daughters of the petitioner No. 2 and accused nos.5 and 7 are husbands of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 herein.

4. The allegations in the complaint are that the 2nd respondent herein is legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner herein and their marriage was performed on 25 / 26 April, 2003 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and the parents of 2nd respondent have incurred an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the performance of the marriage.

5. It is further alleged by the 2nd respondent herein that the 1st petitioner and his parents and sisters informed the 2nd petitioner and her parents that the amount of dowry paid by them was very less and pressurized her parents to execute settlement deed in respect of 60 cents land situated in Jakkampudi village, near Vijayawada, accordingly, a settlement deed was executed on 15.10.2023 and registered in the office of the Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

6. On 25.05.2003 the 1st petitioner/ accused no.1 took the 2nd respondent to Hyderabad and lived there for one month and the 2nd respondent has taken to Bengaluru in the month of July, 2003 since Petitioner no.1/accused No.1 informed to the 2nd respondent herein that he was promoted as project leader in Wipro Technologies and transferred to Bengaluru from Hyderabad. As the 2nd respondent became pregnant and carrying child, she was asked to go to her parents’ house i.e. Pothina Mallayipalem. On 14.08.2003 she reached Vijayawada and went to the house of her parents-in-laws, and her parents came to Vijayawad to receive the 2nd respondent herein for the purpose of taking her for delivery. The 2nd respondent was subsequently informed that the accused no.1 left for London. The 2nd respondent has given birth to a child on 07.03.2004.

7. As the 2nd respondent lost hopes against accused/ petitioner no.1 as such she has filed O.P. No.536 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights and the 1st petitioner herein filed O.P. No.528 of 2005 for divorce against the 2nd respondent herein.

8. It is further alleged in the complaint that the 1st petitioner has demanded the 2nd respondent on 22.02.2010 to withdraw her petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights and also not to defend the petition filed by the petitioners herein. On such demand made by the 1st petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent has made a complaint to the Human Rights Authorities and also made a complaint to the Police. As the police was not registered a complaint, a private complaint was filed before the above said Magistrate.

9. On receiving the said complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police has investigated the case and filed