HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Criminal Petition No.8292 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioners are A.2 and A.5 among 5 accused in C.C.No.261 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahaboobabad, outcome of Cr.No.27 of 2013 of Dornakal Police Station, Warangal district, registered for offences punishable u/sec.498-A, 494 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act(for short, ‘the DP Act’), on the report dt.15.02.2013 of the 2^nd respondent/defacto-complainant-D.Harita, none other than wife of A.1- Dharavath Huddilal and the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 are parents, brother and neighbour of A.1.

2. The averments in the report of the defacto-complainant in registration of the crime supra are that marriage of defacto-complainant was performed with Daravathu Huddilal-A.1 by her parents and at the time of marriage they gave Acs.2-00 cents of agricultural land and 5 Tuals of Gold as Pasupukunkuma to the A.1 and after marriage they lived happily and were blessed with a female child now aged about 7 year. Due to loss sustained by her husband-A.1 in the business and birth of female child, the A.1 caused her physical and mental harassment and also demanded to bring additional dowry and used to beat her severely. Her in- laws A.2 and A.3, her brothers-in law-A.4 and other brothers-in-law Daravathu Ravilal and Daravath Devilal and her co-sister-Daravathu Padma W/o. Pannalal, her junior aunt Kalavathi and her brother-in-law Gagulothu Naresh S/o. kalavathi also harassed her by demanding for additional dowry and also beat her and necked her as a result, she sustained injury at left thigh and since they did not stop harassing her, she went to her parental home. Later she came to know that he got second marriage with one belongs to Relakayalapalli village of Khammam District. Hence, to take action.

3. After registration of the crime, during investigation, the police examined L.Ws.1 to 14 viz: L.W.1-defacto-complainant, L.W.2-father of L.W.1, L.W.3-mother of L.W.1, L.W.4-brother of the L.W.1, L.W.5-Maloth Kishan, L.W.6-Rayala Venkateshwarlu, L.W.7-Maloth Thyrya, L.W.8-Bhukya Dhal Singh, L.W.9-Islavath Nama are panchayat elders, L.W.10-G.Sathyanarayana and L.W.11-Banoth Laxman are circumstantial witnesses, L.W.12-D.Kamalakumari- who speaks of her marriage with the A.1, L.W.13- C.Sathyanarayana, Head Constable who registered the crime and L.W.14-J.Krishna Reddy Inspector of Police, the investigating officer who arrested the accused and filed charge sheet by deleting the names of A.6- D.Ravilal, A.7-D.Devilal, A.8-D.Padma, A.9 Guguloth Kalavathi and A.10-Gaguloth Naresh, mentioning as no case made out against them with the permission of his superior officers.

4. The contentions in the quash petition are that in August, 2010 the defacto-complainant left matrimonial house and did not come, then the A.1 filed O.S.No.22 of 2012 for dissolution of marriage before the Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudemon on 01.09.2012, who by providing sufficient opportunity to the defacto-complainant for appearance and on her absence despite notices, decreed the suit, dt.22.03.2013 by dissolving the marriage but the chargesheet was filed on 30.05.2013 which is subsequent to that. The defacto-complainant and the A.1 were living separately and the A.4 is working as a teacher at Koyagudem and the A.5 is a neighbour and working as a teacher who can do nothing with the case. It is further submitted that the FIR and the chargesheet are false and with incorrect factual matrix which is abuse of process. The defacto-complainant did not even appear in the suit for reconciliation and the allegations against the petitioners are ex-facie untenable as all of them are living separately, the name of the 4^th petitioner/A.5, who is a neighbour of A.1 and not a family member nor a relative of A.1 was unnecessarily dragged. The allegations in the chargesheet are vague. Hence, to allow the petition by quashing the proceedings in the Calander Case supra