HITESH HIMMAT SINGH RAJPUROHIT Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 6 are A.1 to A.6 viz: husband(A.1), married sisters-inlaw (A.2,A.5 and A.6) of the defacto-complainant, husband of A.2(A.4) and uncle of A.1 (A.5) in C.C.No.178 of 2016 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the DP Act'), which is outcome of Cr.No.749 of 2015,dt.09.11.2015 of Police Station Miyapur and the police after investigation filed charge sheet against six accused supra by citing 9 witnesses including 3 Investigating Officers as L.Ws. 7 to 9, defacto-cmplaiannt as L.W.1, her father, mother and two brothers as L.Ws. 2 to 5 and another witness as L.W.6 which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences supra which is the impugnment herein.

(2.) The contentions in the quash petition in seeking to quash the proceedings and cognizance order are that the petitioners are innocent and committed no offence and they are falsely implicated in the case by the defactocomplainant in order to extract money and the police without verification of the facts and jurisdictional aspects registered the crime mechanically and filed charge sheet without proper investigation and the cognizance order of the learned Magistrate is no way sustainable and there is no jurisdiction to the Magistrate supra for the entire cause of action took place in Mumbai. The defactocomplainant pressurized the A.1(husband) to live separately from his mother and there were quarrels in that issue from her threatening and quarrelsome behaviour and the A.1 filed complaints against her before police, Mumbai on 13.03.2014 and 05.04.2014 and father of A.1 also made a complaint against her before Dadur on 26.04.2014 as she was not allowing him to stay with the A.1 and when the defactocomplainant did not mend her behaviour, the A.1 filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty in O.A.No.1870 of 2015 before Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai narrating how he suffered in the hands of the defacto-complainant and as counterblast to the police report in registration of the crime the defacto- complainant implicated them on the false and baseless allegations and the investigation is also baseless and thereby sought for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) The defacto-complainant to whom notice sent to the address furnished in the charge sheet from unserved as left is sufficient service for no other address from the charge sheet and the FIR and thereby taken as heard and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the material on record.