APHC010029582021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 400/2021 Between:

Karumoju Santoshsoni and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND Karumoju Aruna and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. REDDY VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following:

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.38 of 2020 on the file of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam District.

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 and the 1^st respondent is the defacto complainant. The 1^st respondent has filed a complaint with the Police stating that her marriage was held with the 1^st respondent who is a resident of Jagadalpur Village, Chattisgarh on 24.02.2007 in Vizag as per Hindu customs and traditions; the parents of the 1^strespondent have also given Rs.2,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold, one kilo of silver, 3 tulas gold chain, bracelet, ring and utensils worth Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry. It is stated in the complaint that the 1^st respondent was allowed to live along with her husband only for 10 days after which she was sent out stating that they don’t like the marriage. Later, the 1 ^st respondent left to Hyderabad on job purpose and while the 1^st respondent went to Jagdalpur, all the accused have harassed the 1^st respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. Later, the 1^st respondent went to Sompeta to her parents’ house, where she received a divorce notice. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta and the said suit was decreed. Stating thus, the 1^st respondent has submitted her complaint and upon receipt of which, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Requesting to quash the said proceedings the petitioners have filed the present petition.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has sought quashment of the FIR on the ground that the marriage of the 1^st respondent with the 1^st petitioner herein was long back dissolved by a decree of divorce and as such, the present criminal prosecution under the aforesaid sections of law is not maintainable and that it amounts to abuse of process of law. To prove the same, the learned counsel has also placed before this Court a copy of the decree passed by the Family Court, Bastar (Chattisgarh). He further contended that without preferring an appeal against the aforesaid decree, the 1^st respondent has filed the present complaint with false allegations so as to harass the petitioners. As such, requested to quash the FIR No.38 of 2020 in respect of all the petitioners herein.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 29.01.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order:

“…Therefore, in the said facts and circumstance of the case, in view of the decree of divorce that is placed before this Court, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.38 of 2020 of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam District,…”

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the p