RAJESH GUTTA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the de facto complainant in both the petitions is one and the same and the petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant respectively, both the petitions heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONERS approach this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.507 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby they are facing charge for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 and 511 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard both sides.

(3.) IT is the admitted case of the respondent that she has forwarded a statement attested by a notarized public signed by her. The section specifically prevent the officer from obtaining signature in the statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and also the Section 161 clearly speaks about the manner with which the investigation be conducted and the statements to be recorded. Section 161 Cr.P.C. also runs as follows: