P VENKAT REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applications are filed by A-2, A-3 and A-1 respectively under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 221 of 2011 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. A private complaint filed by K. Madhava Reddy, father of K. Rajani, was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On reference, the said case came to be registered as Crime No. 88 of 2011 of Saroornagar Women Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet.

(2.) The substance of the allegations in the charge-sheet are as under:

(3.) Relying upon the unreported Judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 2976 of 2009 and 4921 of 2010 the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the statement of the witnesses sent by registered post cannot be treated as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any other material connecting the petitioners with a crime, he submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. As the allegations in the charge sheet, do not disclose any acts of harassment committed by A-1 in India and in view of the bar under Section 188 Cr.P.C., he submits that the Courts at Hyderabad will get jurisdiction to try the matter only after obtaining sanction from the Central Government. He would further submit that the allegations against A-2 and A-3 are also based on the statement of the daughter of the respondent and since the victim is not examined by the police, the averments made against A-2 and A-3 in the charge sheet have no legal basis. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the report given by the father of the aggrieved person is not maintainable but did not press for the same.