THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6338 of 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.521 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. When this matter came up for consideration on 26.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. However, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter was posted to 01.09.2025. On 01.09.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and this Court heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and posted to 08.09.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 in the morning session and afternoon session, either physically or virtually. It appears that respondent No.2 is not having any interest to prosecute the proceedings. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in Crime No.46 of 2016. The Investigating Officer without properly conducting investigation filed the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and numbered it as C.C.No.521 of 2016. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2-de facto complainant and petitioner No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2, are living separately since 2011. The petitioners never demanded any additional dowry. However, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 05.07.2016, i.e., after lapse of more than five years. As per Rule 5 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (T.S. Dowry Prohibition Rules) (for short, ‘the Rules), respondent No.2 ought to have filed complaint within a period of one year from the date of offence. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act is contrary to the Rules. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or the contents of the charge sheet, the offence under Section

498-A of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioners.

4.1. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 under the provisions of the Protection of Woman Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, claiming very same reliefs, which were mentioned in the complaint dated 05.07.2016. The petitioners have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.31422 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 15.04.2024.

4.2. He also submitted that petitioner No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014 before the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking dissolution of marriage against respondent No.2 and the Family Court decreed F.C.O.P. on 27.09.2016 by granting permanent alimony of Rs.16 lakhs to respondent No.2. As per the said decree, petitioner No.1 paid the entire amount to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said decree passed by the Family Court dated 27.09.2016, respondent No.2 had approached this Court and filed F.C.A.No.369 of 2017 and subsequently, the same was withdrawn by respondent No.2 on 23.01.2020. Hence, the decree passed by the Family Court has become final.

4.3. He further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and they never harassed or demanded any additional dowry from respondent No.2. Ho