Quashed

A.Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2022CRLP/1245/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, and 506 IPC. The court held the complainant knew of the petitioner's prior marriage due to close familial ties, negating fraud elements essential for cheating conspiracy charges. Section 498-A was unsustainable as no legal marriage existed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner-accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.417 of 2015 are quashed.

A.Ravi Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 1245 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.Ravi, S/o A.Ramulu, Aged about 40^years, Occ Software Engineer, Rl/o H.No.42-15, Anjaiah Nagar, Jagadgiri Gutta, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad - 37.

¶10

A.Bala Sravanthi, Wo A.Ravi, Aged about 35^years, Occ Household, Rl/o H.No.42-'15, Anjaiah Nagar, Jagadgiri Gutta, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad - 37.

¶11

A.Ramulu, S/o A.Pentaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o Kompally Village, Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Smt.A.Lachamma, W/o A.Ramulu, Aged 65 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl,/o Kompally Village, Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District - 508 101^.

¶13

A.Srinu @ A.Venkatesh, S/o A.Ramulu, Aged 35 years, Occ Student, Rl/o Kompally Villase, Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda r'ttrlilrff,?Sl,.enyeccuseo

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. Smt.A.Sangeetha, Wo A.Ravi D/o V.Yadagiri, aged about 35 years, Occ Household, R/o H.No. 1 -2-21 2/4/K, Domalasuda#r,f8lll?3i_EspoNDENrs

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pteased to quash the complaint bearing C.C.No.4171201 5, on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners in C"C.No.41712015, on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.G.II/ADHUSUDHAN REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri B.Seshu Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THI HoN'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NA(iAII.rljI\l

¶22

C;IIMINAL PETITION No. 1245 ol 2(tiO

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Cr minal Petition is hled under Sectiorr 482 of the Code of Crimi :ral Procedure by the petitioners-ac c:sed llos. I to 5 to quash .1.C.No.417 of 2015 on the file^,:1 learned XIll Additional C hief Metropolitan Magistrate, [I1 clerab,rd the cognizance o which has been taken for the olT:r:ces under Sections 406. 420,498-A, 506 read with Section 1120-ti of tht: Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 crf the Dowrr,, Prohibition Ar t.

¶25

The fac s in briefas can be seen from the charge s rcel are as under:

¶26

a) Respon lent No.2 - de-facto complainanl has filed a private com >laint before the IX Additional Metr,rpolitan Magistrate, llampally at Hyderabad alleging tl-rat pr:titioner No. 1-accused No.t has developed friendship with hr:r and both of them fell i r love with each other and decided to marry and both of then went to Tirupathi and married^(:e,ch other on 10.11.2008. A complaint was filed in the Police Sitation about girl (respond, nt No.2-de-facto complainant) missing anC Police have tracec respondenF^{-lltro.2-de-facto} cornl> ainant and

¶27

)

¶28

petitioner No.l-accused No.1 and produced them before the elders, cases were withdrawn ald both the families have compromised and allowed the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and petitioner No.l-accused No.1 to lead their marital life. The family of petitioner-accused No.1 have demanded Rs.l lakh and 10 thulas of gold arrd other household articles and all of them were given to them by the family of the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant.

¶29

b) The petitioner-accused No. 1 is the software engineer and was shifted to Pune along with respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. During their wedlock, the respondent No.2-defacto complainant was blessed with a daughter (Sahithi) on 13.05.2010. When hrst birth day of their daughter Sahithi was celebrated at the house of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 - accused Nos.3 and 4, who are the parents of petitioner No.l-accused No.1 at Nalgonda, Police came to their house stating that a case has been registered against the petitioner No. l-accused No. 1 and their family members for the offence under Sections 498-A atd. 494 of ttre Indian Penal Code on a complaint^given by petitioner No.1-accused No.2-accused No.2, No. 1 6who is the first wife of petitioner

¶30

/ I I

¶31

¶32

c) Petitione No. 1 -accused No. t has never inf,r:.r::rt:d t:rat he is already mar ied with petitioner No.2-accusecl No 21. However, the case Iiled ry the petitioner No.2-accused No.1i agair.st the petitioner No. -accused No. 1 and his family rrrembers was settled and cor rpromised before the Lok Adalath or,^r)7.0c.201 l. However, divor :e v/as not taken by petitioner No.1-:r,:cused No. 1 from petitioner No.2-accused No.2. Subsequently, t.he petitioner No. 1-accused Jo. 1 shifted to Bangalore on transfer^,:f pet itioner No.1-accused No.l, wherein petitioner No.1-a,.:<:used No. I started demar ding respondent No.2-de-facto corxplainant to bring additior a1 dowry and on her failure to ge t adcLitional dowry, the pe itioner No.1-accused No.1 start.ed lLzrrass:ng the respondent Nc 2-de-facto complainant mentally an,1 phys,cally.

¶33

d) Petitiont r No.S-Accused No.5, who is thr: brother of petitioner No I -accused No. 1 used to visit tl-ur ho -rse of respondent Nr .2-de-facto complainant frequentl-v and he used to instigate hir brother i.e., petitioner No.l-accusen petitioner No. l-accused No. 1 usecl to harass the responde: rt No.2-de-facto complainant. Petir.ioner No.Saccused No.5 also used to abuse the respondent Irlo.2-c.e-facto complainant i r hlthy language. The respondent I[o 2-c.e-facto

¶34

¶35

complainant has not informed anything to her parents on a hope that the accused persons would change their attitude.

¶36

e) Petitioner No. l-accused No.1 and respondent No.2-defacto complainant along with their daughter went to the house of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 - accused Nos.3 to 5 but they have not changed their attitude and have started passing sarcastic remarks against the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and instigating petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and on such instigation petitioner No. l-accused No. 1 used to harass the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant physically and mentally. All the accused have demanded Rs.5 lakhs as additional dowry. However, with great difficuity, the parents of respondent No.2de-facto complainant have paid Rs.60,000/- as additional dowry and requested petitioner No,1-accused No.1 not to harass their daughter.

¶37

f) Petitioner No. l-accused No. 1 started not^{giving pr6per} food to respondent No.2-de-facto complainant including basic amenities and when the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has questioned the petitioner No.l-accused No.l about his attitude, he stated that she has to work like a maid^servant. Petitioner Nos.3 to 5- accused Nos.3 to 5 used to make^phone

Y1a.

calls to petition r No. l-accused No.1 to harass the respondent No.2-de-facto cc rnplainant

¶44

g) Petitioner No.1-accused No. 1 was trarrsferre<l to Hyderabad in I re month of July, 2Ol2 and all of -hem have shifted to H1 lerabad and after coming to }lyderrbad, harassment ha , increased ald petitioner Nos.3 to Ii- ac,:used Nos.3 to 5 u;ed to visit their house and lrarassecl the respondent No. I-cle-facto complainant physically anC mentally and also instigr ted petitioner No.l-accused No.1. IrL the r ronth of August, 201! . petitioner No.1-accused No.1 picke,l up qrtarel with responden No.2-de-facto complainant, abr.rseC Lter in filthy Ianguage, beat her mercilessly and petitioner lfurs 3 to 5- accused Nos.3 o 5 and ultimately petitioner No.1-ac,:usec No.1 has necked th respondent No.2-de-facto complainant out of their house wt ile demanding Rs.S lakhs as additronal c owry. Petitioner Nos.l to 5- accused Nos.3 to 5 have alsrt demiutded respondent No 2-de-facto complainant bring additional ciowry. Finally the re ;pondent No.2-de-facto complainnrrt has filed private complai rt before the Magistrate concerned.

¶45

h) The privr.te complaint hled by the respond,:trt No.2-defacto complair iln t was referred to Police conr:<.rnt:d under

¶46

¶47

Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on which the Police have registered the same as a case in Crime No.338 of 2O13 and issued FIR. On completion of investigation, the Police concerned have hled charge sheet, the cognizance of which was taken as C.C.No.417 of 2015 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 406, 42O,498-A, 506 read with Section 12O-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have fiIed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.417 of 2015 on the file ol learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the following grounds:

¶48

i) The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant is none other than the first petitioner's father's sister's daughter (daughter of first petiLioner's maternal aunt), therefore, there is close relationship between the petitioner No.l-accused No.l and the respondent No. 2-de-facto complainant.

¶49

iil The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant is aware that the marriage of petitioner No. l-accused No. 1 with^petitioner No.2-accused No.2 on 13.05.2004. Even after subsisting of first

I -|

marriage, th, respondent No.2-de-facto conrl ainar t has married petitir ner No.l-accused No. I in ThirupathL.

¶54

iii) After dj rputes arose between the responclent No.2-defacto compla nant and petitioner No.1-accuse,l No.1, the respondent N r.2-de-facto complainant has fi1ed NI.C.N:.S8 of 2O14 seeking maintenance to her and her daught,:::. Afi-er fullfledged enqui y, the petition was allowed partly rieclir ing for granting mair tenance to respondent No.2-de-fact<, comp,lainant stating that s re is not the legally wedded wife ol'^-irstpe titioner as marriage rf first petitioner with second pet:L.oner is still subsisting as livorce was not taken,

¶55

iv) The pet itioner No. l-accused No.1 is workin6, as s.oftware engineer worl .ing under various places and the p(rtition(,r Nos.3 to 5 - accuse :1 Nos.3 to 5 were not at all living r,rith them and they have ncL invoived in any of the offences a lleged against them and the ,' used to reside in Nalgonda and oth,::: places.

¶56

Now th : point for determination is:

¶57

" Mhether the proceedings agairrst tlre pelitior ers-accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.N<,. 1I7 tf 2015⁽ n the file of learned XIII Addition,el Chief Metrop .rlitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,^, )irn l>e

¶58

¶59

quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶60

Heard Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶61

On perusal of the order dated 23.O4.2019 in M.C.No.58 of 20 14 filed by the petitioners, it is clear that the learned XXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Hyderabad has declined to grant maintenance to respondent No.2-de-facto complainant holding that she is not legally rvedded wife and as the marriage, which was performed on 13.05.2OO4 between the first petitioner and second petitioner is subsisting. The observations and hndings of learned Magistrate in M.C.No.58 of 2014 have also become final. The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has not filed any document to show that the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner was dissolved and thereby she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. In any case, as per the record available before the court, the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant is not legally wedded wife of lirst^{petitionerand} thereby the offences alleged against all the accused^under

Sections 498-,, of the Indian Penal Code and SectiorLs 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prr hibition Act are not at all applicable Thr:reiore, the proceedin {s against the petitioners in C.C.Nc,..1 17 of 2OLs on the file rf learned XIII Additional Chiet .Metrcpolitan Magistrate, H"derabad for the offences under Se,:tions 498-A of the Indian P, nal Code and Sections 4 and 5 Dll the Dowry Prohibition A( t. cannot be proceeded.

¶67

The oth :r offences alleged against the petitjolers is for the oflences unde :' Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penz I Code. In Vijay Kum rr Ghai and others vs. The State of^'ffIest Bengal and othersr t lre Hon'ble Supreme Court held at 1,e,rra*.. On" at to 36 as undr r with regard to the ingredients of fjr:ctior: 420 of the Indian Pe ral Code:

¶68

.31. S zction 415 IPC defines "cheating" uth'.c,h reads as undr^,:

¶69

'$75. Chedting.-Whoeuer, by deaziui.n.q ong pers')n, fraudulently or dishonestlg in.a'ucr:s rle pers tn so deceiued to deliuer anA propetlt to anA pers Dt, or to consent that any person s;t all retoin ang properlg, or intentionallg induces tlc per: on so a rceiued to do or omit to do anAtl-Linq uhich lte LUou 'C not do or omit if he uere nol so Cec-.eiu,,-d, and u.thich act or omission causes or is^r.ik.elg to cau:e damage or harm to thot persotL in bo,7g, nirut., reputation or propertg, is said to ",:l eat"."

' lzozzl^{l scctza}

The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating ore

¶74

1 . Deception of ang person

¶75

(a) Fraudulentlg or dishorLestlg inducing that person-

¶76

(i) to deliuer anA propertA to anA person; or

¶77

(ii) to consent that anA person sholl retain ang propertA; or

¶78

(b) intentionallg inducing that person to do or omit to do angthing uLhich he uould not do or omit if he u)ere no so deceiued, and which act or omission causes or is likelg to cause domage or harm to that person in bodg, mind, reputation or propertA.

¶79

A .fraudulent or dishonest inducement is on essential inqredient of the offence. A person uho disLanestlu induces anoth-er^person to deliuer ang propertA is lioble for the offence of cleating.

¶80

Section 420 IPC defines "ctreatirLg and disLnnestlg inducing deliuery of propertg" tuhich reads as under:

¶81

"42O. Cheating and dishonestlg inducing delioery of propertg.-Whoeuer cheats and therebg dishonestlg induces tLe person deceiued to deliuer anA propertA to anA person, or to make, alter or destrog the uLhole or anA part of a valuable secuitA, or anything uhich is signed or sealed, and uhich is capable of being conuerted into a ualuable secuitg, shall be punished uith impisonment of either description for a term tuhich maA extend to seuen gears, aVd shall also be tiable to Jlne.^" ' '/

I F

St r:fion 420 IPC is a serious form of :,leatir o that incl tdes ind"ucement (to lead or moue sol^rleone to happen) it terms of deliueru of properttl as weLl tts ualuable seanrities. Thb section is ako applicable to matters where the destruction of the procerlu ts caused bq the wag of cheating or intTt u:emer'.t. Purtishn rzrrt for cheating is prouided under tli'; secti<tn uhich n aq extend to 7 years and also nur.l:es tle person I tble to fine.

¶86

T< establish the of;fsnss of cLteating irL 'rtducirtg the deli rcry of propertA, the follouing ir4ire<lients need to e proued:

¶87

0 The representation made by tilrt person utos alse. (ii. The acansed had prior knoulerllTe thzt the representation lrc mad< uas false.

¶88

(ii I The accused made false repre:;ertat tn ttith dbhonest intention ht ord=r to de :eiue the person to uLnm it tutts mad..

¶89

(it) The act uhere the accused iru7t upd tle pers( t to deltuer the pr()f.'eftA )r to pe form or to abstain from ctrilt act whic,'. the person would haue not done or had othe na is e c o mmitte d.

¶90

A: obserued and held by this Cour' in R..K. Vijagast rathg u. Sudha Seethat am [R.,K. Vijagas< rathy u. Sudha Seetharam, (2O19) 76 SC:C 739 : (! 02O) 2 SCC Pd 4541 , the ingrecliznts to constihti^-: an offence under Section 420 ,zr e os follonts:

¶91

(i) o" person must commit tlw offence qf :,k.e.atir tg unde Section 415; and

¶92

¶93

(i4 the person cheated must be dishonestlg induced to:

¶94

(a) deliuer property to ang person; or

¶95

(b) make, alter or destrog ualuable seanritg or angthing signed or sealed and capable of being conuerted into ualuable seanitg. Tfuts, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Sectiott 420 IPC.'

¶96

In view of the above, in order to prove the offence under Section 42O of th,e Indian Penal Code, it is to be alleged by the respondent No.2- de-focto complainant that petitioner No. I has induced her and thereby on account of such inducement, she has parted with property or valuable security and the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant is also expected to prove that such inducement was done by the^petitioners from the inception. In order to connect the above ingredients of section 42O of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case, the intention of the respondent No.2-de-.facfo complainant^perhaps petitioner No. l-accused No.l has concealed the first marriage with petitioner No.2-accused No.2 and without informing about his earlier marriage and he has married respondeht No.2-defacto^{complatnant stealthily.}

¶97

The contents of complaint would give an impression as if the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant came to^{know about}

(

the marriage o[ the first petitioner with second 1r,:titioner only on the first b rthday of her daughter. But the rt:spondeet No.2de-facto coml^,lainant is none other than his mal-er:rerl sister - in - law i.e., t re respondent No.2- de-facto compla.inant is the daughter of I rst petitioner's father's sister. Wherr there is such close relatir nship between petitioner No. 1 and de-fado complainant, it cannot be said that the de-facto complainant does not kno v about the marriage of hrst petitioner with second petitioner.^'lherefore, when the contention al lh-e de-focto complainant cannot be believed about the ;irsL petitioner concealing l is marriage with second petitione'r, the offence under Sectio t 42O of the Indian Penal code is not e.pplicable.

¶102

In alm >st all the cases filed by way of privat-er complaint, it has become :rractice for the complainants to qr(rt3 Section 406 of the Indiar Penal code along with Section 4'.21) ol' the Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that Sections 420 an<l 4O6 of the Indian Pena Code will not normally go together In order to prove the of.::nce under Sections 4O6 of the Indian Petral code, the prosecu.ion is required to establish the ingreclients of Section 4O5 .rf the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:

¶103

'Wltoeuer, being in anA manner en.bttsled with propet:A, or with onA dominion ouel propert!1,

¶104

¶105

dishonestly misappropiates or conuerts to his oun use that propertg, or dishonestlg uses or disposes of that propertA in uiolation of any direction of lau.t prescib,ing tlrc mode in uhich such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, tphich lrc has made touching tLte discharge of such ttust, or wilfullg suffers ong other person so to do, commits "ciminal breach of trust"."

¶106

In order to prove above, following ingredients are required

¶107

to be proved by the prosecution:

¶108

The accused must be entrusted with property or with the dominion power over that properly.

¶109

The person entrusted must dishonestly misappropriate or converted the property for his own use.

¶110

The person entrusted dishonestly used or dispose of the property or wilfully suffer any person to do so.

¶111

There is not even a single ingredient to constitute that the petitioners have committed offence under Section 4O6 of the Indian Penal code. It is very unfortunate that whenever such private complaints are forwarded to the Police, the Police mechanically filed charge sheets by quoting the sections of Indian Penal Code as found in the private complaint without even considering as to whether there are any ingredients or prima-facie material to show that the accused likely to have committed the offences alleged in the complaint. There are no

ingredients a least pima-facie in respect of offenr:e,s^pu:tishable under Sectio: Ls 42O and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶116

The otl er offence alleged against the petiticrrers ir; for the offence unde Section 506 of the Indian Penal Corie. S,r, far as this offence i^, concerned, there are no specific ov€'15-.",. against the petitione s. Though it is stated that all tb.e rlccused have threatened tl e respondent No.2- de-facto complirinant vrith dire consequence ; in case if additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs is not brought, not ring has been mentioned in the cornplai 1t as to which of the rccused has threatened her. The res,trrondent No.2de-facto corr plainant is expected to mention a:; to o:r which date, in who;e presence and at which place an,1 which of the accused has .hreatened her. The allegations in .€.spect ,>f 506 of the lndian P, nal code are omnibus and they ar{: v-.ry g:neric in nature. In act all the offences are arising olrt of the main Section 498- \ of the Indian Penal Code and Sectrons 4 and 5 of the Dowry P ohibition Act. When the responden t No.2.de-facto complainant is not admittedly legally weddecl wifr: of petitioner No.l-accuse< No.l, the relationship between pe tition'tr No. 1- accused No. and respondent No.2-de-facto complrinan t can be termed as lir e in relationship and both of them are adults and therefore, tt eir relationship even during the s'rbsis lence of

¶117

¶118

¶119

marriage of first petitioner with second petitioner cannot be questioned. Therefore, even the ingredients of offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are not being attracted to the facts of the case.

¶120

The other offence aileged against the petitioners is criminal conspiracy. The respondent No.2- de-facfo complainant has not specifically mentioned anywhere in the complaint as to how the ingredients under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code are attracted. In order to constitute the offence under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent No.2de-facto complainant is expected to allege that more than two persons shali conspire to do a criminal act or illegal act by way of illegal means. In the case on hand, nothing has been attributed against the petitioners that they conspired to commit an offence. The complaint is {iled narrating as if she does not know the marriage of first petitioner with second petitionelin the year 2004.

¶121

The de-facto complainant being daughter of first petitioner's maternal aunt, it cannot be said that she does not to know whether marriage of the petitioner No.1 was performed with petitioner No.2. Th,e de-facto complainant being close

I I

relatives of fi-st petitioner cannot take a plea tLLat she rloes not know about the marriage of first petitioner lr'ith second petitioner. <sup>rhen the respondent No.2- de-facto r:omplainant is aware of th :: marriage of the first petitionr:r^q,ith second petitioner, it :annot be alleged against accused pe:sons that all of them hav : committed offence of criminal co:-rspirircy and allowed thei marriage to continue. Even otherw.se, the petitioner No I and respondent No.2- de-facto conrplaine.nt have left their res rective houses without informing l-tLeir pa:ents or elders and ht ve performed their marriage in Thirtrp,at.hi r;ecretly. On a comp aint given to the Police, petitionr:r No.1 and respondent :>.2-de-facto complainant were traced and brought back to Hyd :rabad. That means, t}le de-fan:to comlrlainant knowing full well that first petitioner married u,ith second petitioner har taken the risk of marrying him. 'l1rt:refore, when such is the ct se, the de-facto complainant cannot allege ltrat the accused have conspired and concealed about the Iirst nla-rriage and thereby r he had to marry first petitioner. Herrce, there are no ingredient ; at all to say that the petitioners ha\re cornmitted the offence pr rnishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal code.

¶126

1ti

¶127

Therefore, to sum up, the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not at all applicable as respondent No.2-defacto^{complainantis not the legally wedded wife of the lirst} petitioner and similarly as discussed above as there are no ingredients to hold that the petitioners have committe d the offence under Sections 406,42O,506, 12o-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.417 of 2015 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶128

17 . Accordingly the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.417 of 2015 on the fiie of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶129

As a sequel, the misceilaneous Petitions,^pending if any,

shall stand closed.

,TRUE^COPY//

Sd/"B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR ..5,5,,^oFFrcER

¶134

To 1 . The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad' 2q. The Two Station ccs^{to the Public House Ofticer p P*;Jto;'ii[fiUof iCnlxk'ap'lly' i'roitn" Hyderabad'State of relansana at} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶135