JACAB PEREZ Vs. G. ARUNA PRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A.5 among five accused in C.C.No.428 of 2015 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 177 IPC, which is out come of Crime No.104 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, dated 04.06.2015, of the de facto complainant-Smt.G. Aruna Priya W/o.A.Jacob Daniel (A.1) of Seetapahalmandi, Secunderabad, in seeking to quash the said calendar case proceedings.

(2.) The contentions in the quash petition are that A.5 is the brother of A.1, who is residing away to A.1. The marriage of A.1 with the de facto complainant was performed on 04.06.1997. A.5 was working as Area Manager in Hyderabad at Wrigley India previously and subsequently on 01.07.1997 he was transferred to Bangalore and thereby residing at Bangalore and working therefrom till 2005. His mother died in July 2002. In 2005, A.5 got a new job at Kerala and shifted his family to Kerala with his father, where they stayed till 2007, where his father also died in March 2006. In April, 2007, the petitioner-A.5 shifted to Bangalore from Kerala and since then he is staying at Kerala and since marriage of the de facto complainant with A.1 the petitioner-A.5 never resided with them as staying separately even by then and later transferred to Bangalore and shifted there. A.1 filed O.P.No.307 of 1998 on 20.12.1998 itself is for judicial separation, but and after receiving of notice therein, the de facto complainant earlier filed a complaint before Begumpet Police Station for dowry harassment that was registered as Crime No.6 of 1999 against A.1 and another married sister of A.1. After dismissal of the judicial separation petition O.P.No.307 of 1998, A.1 filed C.M.A.No.3146 of 2000 in High Court and in the reconciliation the couple agreed to join together and consequently the CMA and Crime No.6 of 1999 proceedings were compromised and withdrawn and therefrom they are living together. Later again differences cropped in between them and A.1 filed O.P.No.258 of 2004, for divorce that was ended in dismissal, and filed F.C.A.No.189 of 2005 and said appeal allowed in remanding back the matter O.P.No.258 of 2004 to restore and dispose of afresh with further evidence and later also O.P.No.258 of 2004 dismissed, against which F.C.A.No.211 of 2009 filed, same was also dismissed on 09.10.2009 and the fresh complaint given to Begumpet Police Station on 29.05.2015 is with false allegations and police did not properly investigate the case and there is no sustainable accusation with specific allegations against him from the police investigation and final report and thereby the proceedings are liable to be quashed, which is the sum and substance in the quash petition para 22 of grounds 1 to 24.

(3.) Even the police final report shows, the address of the petitioner- A.5 is at Bangalore. A.1 is at Seetapahalmandi, Secunderabad, so also A.2 to A.4 at the Secunderabad, A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, Telangana State, as the case may be. So far as the police final report from investigation of the crime that was taken cognizance against five accused by the docket order of the learned Magistrate, dated 09.10.2015, the Investigating Officer served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to A.1 to A.5, who furnished their I.D. proof, Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, Residential address to appear. A.1's address furnished as at Somajiguda, but residing elsewhere and he intentionally submitted false information to the public servant thereby Section 177 IPC added against A.1 and insofar as the petitioner-A.5, brother of A.1, concerned, there are no any specific allegations in the charge sheet running in five pages as to any specific role and in the absence of any specific allegations with sustainable accusation, the very taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate so far as against the petitioner-A.5 no way survives, for none of the statement of witnesses i.e., LW.1-de facto complainant and the so-called independent witnesses-LWs.2 to 9 shows any specific role and overt act to constitute any offence under Section 498-A IPC against him of any cruelty or dowry harassment against the de facto complainant, being her husband's brother. So far as the petitioner/A.5 concerned, it is stated earlier Crime No.6 of 1999 is withdrawn and some days thereafter when she went to join her husband, the petitioner-A.5 was also there and the petitioner abused the de facto complainant by saying A.1 not going to join de facto complainant for marital life and if she comes again to him he will do whatever he can. Even that allegation no way sustains to take any cognizance so far as against the petitioner-A.5 concerned. Thereby the quash petition so far as the petitioner/A.5 is liable to be allowed.