HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12609 of 2013 Date: 03-6-2014 Between M.V.Hari Krishna … Petitioner/ Accused No.4 and Surekha Kakarla … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12609 of 2013 Order:
The petitioner is accused No.4. He seeks for quashment of the charge-sheet so far as he is concerned. The 1st respondent filed a matrimonial case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against four accused. The 1st accused is her husband. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st accused. The 4th accused is the elder brother of the 1st accused. As already pointed out, the 4th accused seeks for the quashment of the charge-sheet so far as he is concerned.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint, there are no specific overt acts or allegations against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the family members of the 1st accused including the petitioner herein actively supported the 1st accused to remarry. The complaint further stated that the 1st accused used to visit the house of the 4th accused twice or thrice in a week and that the 4th accused and others used abusive language against the 1st respondent in “worst manner”.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the 1st respondent and other witnesses. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no specific overt act was attributed against the 1st petitioner such as the date on which the petitioner indulged in the criminal activity or the language deployed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has fairly stated the overt acts of the petitioner and other accused.
I am afraid that the statement of the 1st respondent as well as the statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C are sweeping and general in nature.
I do not consider that their evidence would not stand the test of conviction resulting from such statements so far as the conviction of the petitioner concerned. I therefore consider that it would not be appropriate to continue the case against the petitioner as the same would be tantamount to abuse of process of law.
5. In view of the above reasons, this petition is allowed. C.C.No.1334 of 2013 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad so far as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned, is hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
03rd June, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12609 of 2013 03rd June, 2014. (Ak)