Telangana High Court

Alikanti Srujan vs The State Of Telangana on 31 August, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6847 AND 6874 OF 2020

COMMON ORDER:

      Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 is filed by accused Nos.4

and 5 under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.6307 of 2019

on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar,

Cyberabad, whereas Criminal Petition No.6874 of 2020 is filed by

accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 to quash the proceedings against them in the

said C.C.


      2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 are

accused Nos.4 and 5, while the petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.6874 of 2020 are accused Nos.2, 3 and 6. The offences alleged

against them are under Sections - 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and

Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.


      3. Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioners, and Mr. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State in both the Criminal

Petitions.

4. As per the charge sheet, allegations against the petitioners

are as under:

KL,J

i) The marriage of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant with

accused No.1 was performed on 05.12.2015.

ii) Accused No.2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent No.2, while

accused No.4 is her brother-in-law and accused No.5 is wife of

accused No.4. Accused No.6 is mediator to the said marriage, and

maternal uncle of accused No.1.

iii) At the time of marriage, on the demand of accused No.1

and his parents, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.2.00

lakhs and presented 15 tulas of gold, 2 tulas of gold to accused No.1,

house-hold articles and 1½ acre of agricultural land at Sitharampuram

Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District.

iv) After marriage, respondent No.2 joined the company of

accused No.1 at her marital home in Khammam, and stayed along

with accused Nos.1 to 5 for 4-5 days, and later, they shifted to

Hyderabad. After one week, accused Nos.4 and 5 left for UK.

Respondent No.2 and accused No.1 started living in a rented house at

Habsiguda.

v) Within a week, accused No.1 started harassing respondent

No.2, both physically and mentally on silly issues, such as making

comments in the presence of relatives that respondent No.2 does not

know cooking properly, not allowing her to speak with her parents and

that she should speak to accused No.3 alone etc., the details of which

have been mentioned in the charge sheet.

KL,J

vi) Accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws, also harassed respondent

No.2 saying that she did not know cooking. Further, whenever, her

in-laws visits their house, accused No.1 used to tell lies against her, on

which, her in-laws used to abuse her.

vii) Later, respondent No.2 came to know that accused No.1

had already married to one Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj,

Delhi.

viii) Accused No.1 went to Singapore on work Visa. Then the

things became worse and during the said period, respondent No.2 gave

birth to a female child on 15.10.2016. After return on Work Visa, they

took a rented house at Hastinapuram and used to stay there. When she

questioned about the first marriage, accused No.1 used to quarrel with

her. After some time, accused No.1 has become jobless and addicted

to bad vices. As respondent No.2 was unable to bear the harassment

meted out by accused No.1, she left the house and started residing

with her parents.

ix) Accused No.1 lodged a complaint against respondent No.2

at Rajendra Nagar Police Station for not leading marital life, on

which, the police held counseling between the parties. After some

days, again accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing respondent No.2 both

physically and mentally. Accused Nos.4 to 6 knowing fully well

about the first marriage of accused No.1, concealed the same and KL,J

cheated respondent No.2. Thus, all the accused are liable to be

prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.

5. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has

taken the same on file vide C.C. No.6307 of 2019 for the aforesaid

offences against the accused including the petitioners herein.

6. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 herein have filed Criminal Petition

No.6847 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in the

aforesaid C.C. with the following grounds:

i) Accused Nos.4 and 5 are innocent and no way concerned

with the alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the

above case as they happened to be brother-in-law and co-sister of

respondent No.2.

ii) Accused Nos.4 and 5 have settled in London, UK in the year

2011 and that hardly they visited Hyderabad on two occasions, viz., at

the time of marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2, and at the

time of delivery of accused No.5. Thus, the question of harassing

respondent No.2 by accused Nos.4 and 5 does not arise.

iii) There are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 and

5, and there is no evidence to prove the same.

iv) Accused No.1 has already filed a petition against

respondent No.2 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty vide FCOP

N.841 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at KL,J

L.B. Nagar. As a counter blast, respondent No.2 filed the present case

with false allegations.

v) In order to harass the entire family of accused No.1,

respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members in the present

case.

vi) In support of their submissions, accused Nos.4 and 5 have

relied on a decision in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab1.

7. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 have filed Criminal Petition

No.6874 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in the

aforesaid C.C. on the same grounds that are raised by accused Nos.4

and 5 apart from the following grounds:

i) Accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and are no way concerned

with the alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the

above case as they happened to be the in-laws of respondent No.2.

Whereas, accused No.6 is a mediator to the marriage and he is no way

concerned with the alleged harassment etc. In fact, the entire charge

sheet does not disclose about the role of accused No.6.

ii) Respondent No.2 was residing with her husband, accused

No.1 right from 2015 to 2019 at different places viz., Habsiguda,

Meerpet, Hastinapur and Nagloe, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 were

residing at Khammam as accused No.2 was working as RTC

Employee in Khammam Bus Depot and retired on 31.03.2019. Thus,

. (2000) 5 SCC 207 KL,J

the question of harassing respondent No.2 by accused Nos.2 and 3

does not arise.

8. With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners sought to

quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2,

would contend that there are specific allegations mentioned by

respondent No.2 in her complaint, date wise and the harassment that

was meted out by the petitioners towards her. The police after going

through the complaint and after satisfying that there are grounds of

harassment etc., registered a case vide FIR No.219 of 2019 for the

aforesaid offences. During the investigation, the police have recorded

the statements of relevant witnesses and on the analysis of the same,

came to a conclusion that, prima facie, there is evidence with regard to

the harassment meted out by the petitioners, filed charge sheet against

them for the aforesaid offences.

i) Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners

have to disprove the allegations during trial and, therefore, at this

stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

ii) With the said submissions, learned counsel sought to

dismiss both the criminal petitions.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the

police having recorded the relevant witnesses and having gone KL,J

through the contents of complaint, filed the charge sheet against the

petitioners and accused No.1. There are specific allegations against

each of the accused in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 with

regard to harassment etc., meted out by them towards respondent

No.2. The contention that the petitioners are innocent and that they

are no way concerned with the alleged offences and that they are

falsely implicated in the above case etc., are all to be tested during

trial, but not at this stage and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be

quashed at this stage.

i) With the aforesaid contentions, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor sought to dismiss the criminal petitions.

11. FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) As stated above, the undisputed facts are that accused Nos.2

and 3 are parents of accused No.1 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are brother

and sister-in-law of accused No.1. Accused No.6 is mediator of the

marriage and also maternal uncle of accused No.1. The marriage of

respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 05.12.2015,

and it is an arranged marriage. They have stayed at Khammam for 4-5

days and thereafter, they have shifted to Hyderabad. Accused Nos.4

and 5 are residents of UK at that particular point of time, and they

came to India at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with respondent

No.2. After one week of marriage, they left UK.

KL,J

ii) In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that

respondent No.2 questioned accused No.1 about the first marriage and

he told her that she (Deepika) is his friend. One day Ms. Divya, one

of the friends of accused No.1, chatted with him from Malasia and he

became dull whole day. On enquiry, accused No.1 told that Divya's

friend loved him and she is still waiting for him to marry. Then,

respondent No.2 questioned accused No.1 whether he loved her, for

which he denied. On the next day, respondent No.2 left to her office

and had taken cell number of Divya from accused No.1 and made

phone call to Divya, who told her that accused No.1 has tragedy

before the marriage, hope that he is now OK, disconnected the call

and informed the same to accused No.1. The said fact was informed

to accused No.3 by accused No.1. Accused No.3 abused respondent

No.2 in filthy language when she came from the office. After that,

accused No.1 beat respondent No.2 by questioning that why she was

making phone calls to Divya. By that time, respondent No.2 was sixth

month pregnant.

iii) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that on

the next day, respondent No.2 informed the same to her parents, who

asked accused No.1 to send their daughter to their house.

Accordingly, accused No.1 dropped respondent No.2 at her parents'

house. After few days, accused No.1 went to Singapore on work.

Respondent No.2 expected delivery within one week. At that time,

accused No.1 telephoned her uncle and abused everybody. Her uncle KL,J

was in USA at that particular point of time. Within her delivery, she

came to know about accused No.1 through LinkedIn that he is already

having dependent VISA. Respondent No.2 was blessed with a female

baby on 15.10.2016. The said fact was informed to her in-laws by the

father of respondent No.2 i.e., LW.3, and she informed the said fact to

accused No.1. Her in-laws came to her parents' house. After five

months, accused No.1 came from Singapore to see the baby, but he

told everybody that they did not inform about the birth of daughter. A

panchayat was held with regard to the same at Suryapet. Thereafter,

accused No.1 took respondent No.2 to his residence at Khammam.

iv) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that

respondent No.2 enquired with regard to the dependent VISA of

accused No.1, who in turn informed her that he has already married a

woman for the purpose of going to UK. The said woman did not like

him and he has no relation with that woman and, thus, accused No.1

told lies to respondent No.2. They have stayed at Khammam for three

months and came back to Hyderabad. She found accused No.1's first

marriage Photographs in the mail and on coming to know about the

said fact, accused No.3 started abusing her and accused No.1 beat her.

v) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that a panchayat

was held in which accused No.3 agreed that it is the mistake of

accused No.1 and after coming to know about that marriage he had

taken divorce and showed the same. Then the elders convinced her

and sent her. Accused No.2 got transferred from Khammam to KL,J

Hyderabad. Accused Nos.1 to 3 resided at Attapur. Accused No.1

lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 at Rajendranagar Police

Station that she is not coming to lead matrimonial life. The elders

have conducted counselling between accused No.1 and respondent

No.2 thrice wherein accused No.1 has agreed certain conditions. They

have taken a rented house at Nagole and accused Nos.2 and 3 also

resided with them. After fifteen days, accused Nos.2 and 3 went to

Khammam on some work. Again, accused No.1 has tortured her, both

physically and mentally. It is also mentioned that after the marriage,

accused Nos.4 and 5 came to India twice, but they never came to

respondent No.2.

vi) In the complaint as well as the statement recorded under

Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has categorically stated that

accused Nos.4 to 6 never tortured her, but all of them knew about the

first marriage of accused No.1 which they have concealed and cheated

her. The same were also stated by LWs.2 and 3, parents of respondent

No.2 and other witnesses in the statements recorded under Section -

161 of Cr.P.C. On the analysis of the said statements, the

Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned in the charge sheet

that accused Nos.4 to 6 never tortured respondent No.2, but they all

knew about the first marriage of accused No.1 which they have

concealed and cheated her. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the

charge sheet mentioned that accused Nos.4 to 6 have committed the

offences under Sections - 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and Sections - 3 KL,J

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In fact, there is no allegation

attracting the offence under Section - 323 of IPC against accused

Nos.4 to 6, and the allegation is only against accused No.1.

vii) It is relevant to note that accused No.6 is only a mediator

of the marriage, and according to respondent No.2, he is maternal

uncle of accused No.1. It is the specific allegation of respondent No.2

that accused No.1married one Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj,

Delhi. According to her, the petitioners in both the criminal petitions,

accused Nos.2 to 6 are aware of the said fact, but they have concealed

the same. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused

Nos.4 and 5 are aware of the first marriage of accused No.1, and so

also accused No.6.

viii) In view of the above discussion, according to this Court,

the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of offences

alleged against accused Nos.4 to 6. However, prima facie, there are

specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws of

respondent No.2 about the harassment said to have meted out by them

towards respondent No.2.

ix) In Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra2

relied on by the petitioners, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench

dealt with the scope of Section - 498A of IPC. In the said case, the

deceased was the first wife of Baburao Charhate, accused therein.

. 2007 Crl.L.J. 3866 KL,J

During subsistence of the said marriage, he married the applicant. In

the said context, the Bombay High Court held that since the marriage

between the accused and the applicant is void on account of

subsistence of first marriage and that she does not fall within the scope

of Section - 498A of IPC, and, accordingly, proceedings against her

have been quashed. But, the said principle is inapplicable to the facts

of the present case.

x) In Smt. Sunita Goyal v. State of Punjab3, the Punjab and

Haryana High Court, on examination of facts of the case therein, held

that to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under

Sections - 406 and 498A of IPC, there must be specific

allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the accused

therein to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to

them. Whereas, in the case on hand, as discussed above, there are

specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, while no allegations

against accused Nos.4 to 6. Thus, the said decision is not helpful to

Accused Nos.2 and 3.

xi) In Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand4, the complainant

therein has live-in relationship with accused, and the Apex Court on

an examination of facts of the case therein held that Section - 498A of

IPC being a penal provision deserves strict construction, neither a

girlfriend nor concubine is a relative of a husband within the meaning

. 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 3610

. (2010) 10 SCC 190 KL,J

of Section - 498A of IPC. Whereas, in the present case, respondent

No.2 got married accused No.1 and, therefore, the said decision is not

helpful to the case of petitioners herein.

xii) A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 deals with

a case of bigamy and, therefore, the principle laid down in the said

decision is in applicable to the case on hand.

xiii) Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh6

also a case of second marriage during life time of first wife, moreover,

the trial Court therein has convicted, which was confirmed by the

High Court, and the Apex Court reduced the sentence and, therefore,

the said decision is also not helpful to the petitioners herein.

xiv) In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh7, the Apex

Court held that casual reference to the family members of husband

(unmarried sister and elder brother of husband) in FIR as co-accused

as well as parents of the accused, and in the absence of any specific

allegation and prima facie case against co-accused, proceedings are

liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there are specific

allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, while no allegations against

accused Nos.4 to 6.

xv) In Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh8, the wife therein

was living separately since April 2011 due to strained relationship

. (2011) 7 SCC 616

. (2007) 15 SCC 369

. (2012) 10 SCC 741

. (2014) 13 SCC 567 KL,J

with her husband, and in the said circumstances, the Apex Court held

that there is no question of any beating by the appellants as the second

respondent therein was not interested to live together. The facts of the

said case are altogether different to the case on hand in so far as the

petitioners are concerned.

xvi) In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh9, the Apex

Court gave remedial measures and directions in order to avoid

implication of family members of husband without there-being any

specific allegations. But, in the case on hand, prima facie, there are

specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, the

said decision is inapplicable to accused Nos.2 and 3.

xvii) In Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu10, it was held that the

contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of offences alleged

against the accused therein.

xviii) In Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand11, the Apex

Court held as under:

"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.

At the same time, rapid increase in the number of

. (2018) 10 SCC 472

. (2005) 3 SCC 507

. (2010) 7 SCC 667 KL,J

genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even KL,J

after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases."

xix) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The

State of Maharashtra12 has categorically held that quashing criminal

. AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J

proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not

disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If

allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which

cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court

to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case

should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in

conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and

consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on

oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be

no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be

available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might

lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at

threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether

averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or

not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima

facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or

otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial

stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle

proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf

of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on

ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If

ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made

out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

KL,J

xx) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh13, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

xxi) In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.

State of Maharashtra14, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid

certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High

Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the

Constitution of India, which are as under:

"....

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

. AIR 2021 SC 931

. AIR 2021 SC 1918 KL,J

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.

The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned KL,J

Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

12. CONCLUSION:

i) As discussed above, prima facie, there are specific

allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No.2

and, therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed.

However, there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 to 6

even as per the contents of the charge sheet and, therefore, the

proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

KL,J

ii) Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 is accordingly allowed,

and the proceedings in C.C. No.6307 of 2019 on the file of V

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,

are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5.