IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2012 Between:
Raghavender Giri & Ors. … Petitioners/A-1 to A-4 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Narsampet Police Station, Warangal district, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri T. Natraj for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.450 of 2011 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad on the ground that second respondent herein is filing series of complaints against petitioners and the complaint is nothing but to harass the petitioners.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for Petitioners submitted that second respondent is in the habit of filing series of petitions and that some documents have to be filed to show the false nature of the complaint.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted he is filing documents relating to the earlier complaint and the legal notice exchanged between the parties. It is submitted that earlier complaint was withdrawn on account of compromise and the wife joined matrimonial home on the advice of elders but he petitioners further harassed the second respondent herein i.e. wife even after compromise. It is submitted that medical certificates filed along with petition as additional documents do show the nature of harassment and injuries caused to the second respondent and hat she has to undergo abortion on account or ill-treatment. He submitted that because of the interim stay granted in this criminal petition police could not proceed with the investigation and that there is prima facie material attracting the offences under section 498-A, 406 and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. I have perused the material on record. The concerned police registered F.I.R on 19/11/2011 and immediately on 22/11/2011 the petitioners have approached this court by way of criminal petition and obtained stay on 27/01/2012. As seen from the complaint, there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the correctness of these allegations can be assessed only after full-fledged investigation by the Police. Simply because earlier complaint is withdrawn, it cannot be said that there was no further harassment. If there is really harassment or not is the matter to be investigated and at this stage, correctness of the allegations in the complaint cannot be decided.
6. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that as there is prima facie material attracting the offences, it is not a fit case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Advocate for Petitioners submitted that petitioners will co-operate with the investigation and the Police be directed not to arrest the petitioners.
8. Considering the nature of allegations, I feel such a direction can be given in respect of parents of the husband i.e., in-laws of the second respondent, who are second and third petitioners. Police shall proceed with the investigation without arresting the second and third petitioners.
9. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
21/04/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2012 Circulation No.157 Date:21/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43