Criminal Petition No. 7854 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jan 2008
- Bench
- R SUBHASH REDDY
Outcome
Allowed
For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and
Provisions considered
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.436 of 2008 on the file of Neredmet Police Station, Secunderabad.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. Second respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.P.No.1 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, seeking dissolution of their marriage. The said O.P. was allowed by order, dated 22.01.2008. It is stated that the said order has become final, as it is not questioned in appeal. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de facto complainant on 21.10.2008, the Station House Officer, Neredmet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.436 of 2008 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In the said complaint, she alleged that she was married to the petitioner according to Hindu customs and rites by giving dowry, gold ornaments, household articles etc., and thereafter, they lived in Mahabubnagar District at Gadwal; that due to differences between her and the petitioner, she left to her mother’s place at Hyderabad and their relatives’ efforts to solve their issue also ended in futile; that due to harassment by her husband and mother-in-law, she could not lead the matrimonial life and she came to Hyderabad in 2004 and that the petitioner again married one lady at Ballari in Karnataka State.
It is the case of the petitioner that as O.P.No.1 of 2007 filed for dissolution of marriage between him and the second respondent was allowed on 22.01.2008, if complaint, dated 21.10.2008, lodged by the second respondent against him is allowed to be prosecuted, the same amounts to abuse of process, as such, the proceedings in Crime No.436 of 2008 are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent that it is a matter for investigation and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.436 of 2008. Though the second respondent is served, the allegations of the petitioner are not disputed by filing any counter-affidavit. I have perused a copy of order, dated 22.01.2008, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, allowing O.P.No.1 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for dissolution of his marriage with the second respondent/de facto complainant.
Operative part
It appears, even according to the contents of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, she left the company of the petitioner in 2004 and the complaint was filed nearly four (4) years thereafter. The contents of the complaint are vague and incapable of being investigated and that in view of dissolution of marriage of the petitioner and the second respondent, by order, dated 22.01.2008, in O.P.No.1 of 2007, even the allegation against the petitioner with regard to his second marriage with a lady at Ballari in Karnataka State, is baseless. It is to be noted that the said order has become final. As much as no case is made out against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the complaint lodged by the second respondent against him after four (4) years of her leaving the company of the petitioner, is allowed to be prosecuted, it amounts to abuse of process. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in Crime No.436 of 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.436 of 2008 registered on the file of Neredmet Police Station are hereby quashed. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th OCTOBER, 2011.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jan 2008. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.