THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2425 of 2008 Date: 24.6.2010 Between:
Muna Iftekhar, Nirmal Nagar, Hyderabad.
…………Petitioners/accused A4 And The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2425 of 2008 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-A4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.289 of 2005 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner-A4 is the wife of the 1st accused in the case and her marriage was performed with the 1st accused on 8.8.2004 as per the customs. It was alleged by her that the mother of the complainant/2nd respondent gave Rs.1 lakh in the form of cash towards dowry and jehaz articles worth Rs.2 lakhs including jewellery and silver articles. Several sweeping allegations were made that on the instigation of remaining accused, who are close relatives, A1 has been demanding additional dowry and subjecting the petitioner to cruelly. The present petitioner (A4) is the natural sister of A1 and she prosecuted her studies as a student of MBA.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitoner-A4 would submit that after registration of Crime No.324 of 2004, the petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. Immediately, after arrest and release in Crime No.324 of 2004, the 2nd respondent has again filed a private complaint, which was referred to the Police. The police, after receipt of the complaint, have registered Crime No.47 of 2005 for the offence under Section 406 r/w.34 of IPC. In this case also the petitioner-A4 was arrested and later released on bail. After release on bail in Crime No.47 of 2005, the 2nd respondent again got referred another complaint, which was registered as Crime No.74 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Therefore, obviously the defacto-complainant has been filing complaint after the complaint before the learned Magistrate, and, the petitioner-A4 along with the remaining accused had been obtaining orders of bail from the Magistrate concerned each time.
No specific overt acts have been leveled against the petitioner-A4 except alleging that she along with the remaining accused A2 & A3 instigated A1 to harass the defacto-complainant for additional dowry.
The manner in which the defacto-complainant has been filing complaints against the petitioner-A4 are alleged that she has been making all the family members of A1 as accused in each and every case. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A4 that the petitioner-A4 is a student of MBA and her career and the marriage prospects are jeopardized due to successive complaints field by the defacto-complainant and each time the learned Magistrate forwarding them to the police for filing charge sheet against her.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that C.C.No.289 of 2005 came to be filed by the police on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and also of law owing to the conduct of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.289 of 2005 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner-A4 are quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Date: 24.06.2010 mrb