On 4 5 1992, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, IInd Court, set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court, by allowing the criminal revision petition.
1626 of 1993 registering the companyplaint filed by the appellant.
The husband of the appellant on every occasion of his return from the Gulf companyntries, brought valuable articles including household items and ornaments.
1572 of 1993 and quashed the said criminal proceedings arising out of the companyplaint made by the appellant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court.
The appellant filed a companyplaint on 12 6 1990 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the XIth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
Another search was companyducted by the police at the residence of Shri V Srihari, but numberarticle was seized.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate XIth Court forwarded the said companyplaint for investigation and report by the police under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1572 of 1993.
1626 of 1993 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, XIth Court, Secunderabad.
Such application was, however, dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court on 28 6 1993.
106 of 1990 on 18 6 1990 and companymenced investigation.
On 15 11 1989, the appellants husband attempted to companymit suicide and ultimately died on 19 11 1989.
The appellants case is that during the companyrse of investigation, it was revealed that the husband of the petitioner, while working at Saudi Arabia had purchased various articles during the span of six years.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
On such direction, the Station House Officer, Police Station Bowenpally, Secunderabad, registered FIR No.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 14 10 1993, allowed the said application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
The police companyducted a search at the residences of Shri V. Chalapathy Rao, father of the appellants husband and Smt B. Sarojini Devi and seized certain articles found in their houses.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the witnesses cited by the appellant should be examined and thereafter or taking into companysideration of the depositions, the learned Magistrate would proceed further.
1572 of 1993 used to take away most of those items from the petitioners husband forcibly.
After the death of the husband of the appellant, the respondents took away all the articles belonging to the appellant and her husband by breaking open the lock of the door.
Such order was challenged by the appellant before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge.
On 4 5 1993, the respondents filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court inter alia praying for discharging the respondents alleging enormous delay in registering the companyplaint.
On 11 2 1991, the appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 173 and Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure companytending that the police had number properly investigated the case.
Because of the ill treatment and harassment of the appellant in the hands of respondents, the husband of the petitioner became frustrated and attempted to companymit suicide and ultimately died.
The respondents moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
He returned in February 1986, but on the ill advice of the respondents, the husbands attitude towards the appellant changed and the said husband started companysuming liquor heavily.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court thereafter reexamined the companyplaint and her witnesses and after taking into companysideration of such deposition, he again registered the case under Section 380 IPC against accused A 2 to A 4.
Accordingly, a criminal case was ordered to be registered.
The said companyplaint was lodged under Section 395 IPC and also under Section 6 of the Dowry Act against 8 persons including the respondents.
The respondents From the Judgment and Order dated 14 10 1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.
M.P No.
By the aforesaid order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings issued in Crl.
After the death of the husband, the respondents broke open the lock and took away all the valuable articles mentioned in the companyplaint petition from the house where the appellant used to live with the deceased husband.
Thereafter, the husband of the appellant went to Saudi Arabia and was working there.
The relevant facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant was married to one Shri V. Raja Rao under the Special Marriage Act on 18 3 1983 and the appellant and her husband lived together up to 16 11 1983.
M.P. No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 14 10 1993 in Crl.
The husband of the appellant thereafter went to Dubai and returned to India some time in September 1988 and after a short stay for about seven days, he again left for Saudi Arabia and returned to India in January 1989.
