VEGI SATISH Vs. VEGI SNEHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by name Vegi Satish, no other than brother of the husband of the defacto-complainant, is A.3 in C.C.No.142 of 2017 on the file of Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Sathupally, Khammam district, outcome of Cr.No.74 of 2016 of V.M.Banjar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable u/sec.498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act(for short, 'the DP Act'), dt.08.06.2016 on the complaint of the defacto-complainantVegi Sneha against her husband by name Vegi Harikrishna(A.1),her mother-in-lawVegi Vijaya Kumari(A.2) and her brother-in-law-Vegi Satish, the petitioner herein who is now residing at California State of America working as Software Engineer, and the police after investigation filed charge sheet by citing 9 witnesses including the L.Ws.8 and 9-the Investigating Officers, L.Ws.6 and 7-panch witnesses to the confession and disclosure statement of A.1, the L.W.1-defacto-complainant and L.W.2-father of the defacto-complainant, L.W.3-mother of the defactocomplainant, L.Ws. 4 and 5-panchayat elders belongs to Penuballi and Sathupalli Mandals and the learned Magistrate therefrom taken cognizance which is the impingement in the quash petition.

(2.) The contentions in the quash petition are that the allegations against the petitioner are vague, untrue, incorrect and no way makes out any sustainable accusation to implicate him for any of the offences and he has nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of the defacto-complainant and the A.1 that too when the petitioner-A.3 is staying in USA and H1B visa holder since 2011 and visits India now and then on Company's work and stays mostly at Company's guest house and he is roped falsely to settle the matrimonial score between the defacto-complainant and her husband-A.1 and his mother-A.2 for extraneous reasons to bring them to terms and thereby the proceedings in the above Calander Case against the petitoenr/A.3 are liable to be quashed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same. Notice sent to the defacto-complainant to the address furnished in the charge sheet thrice and returned is sufficient service for no other address available including from the charge sheet.