APHC010050282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2925/2024 Between: Abdul Rasool and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. M P V N V SASTRI The Court made the following Order : WP.No.2925 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.2925 of 2024 O R D E R : The petitioners are seeking a direction to quash CC.No.203 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru. 2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, read with 34 of IPC of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 3rd respondent and on account of matrimonial disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint which was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed. 3. The petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent residing at Dubai soon after their marriage. It is also submitted that a false complaint is registered. It is submitted that the manner in which the investigation was done raises serious doubts on the credibility of the investigation. A complaint was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. 4. The 2nd respondent registered the FIR on 22.01.2020 at 05.00PM and incidentally recorded statements of as many as eight WP.No.2925 of 2024 witnesses at 05.00PM. It is submitted that such investigation is unknown to the standards of investigation in a cognizable offence. 5. It is submitted that the 3rd accused is the mother of 1st petitioner passed away during the pendency of the case before the trial Court. The 1st petitioner had filed criminal petition 791 of 2021 seeking quash of CC.No.203 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru, which was dismissed on 19.09.2022. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent had filed a counter and submits that the quash petition filed by the petitioners along with the accused No.4 was dealt by a learned single judge of this Court and the CC.No.203 of 2020 was quashed against the 4th accused therein. 7. It is submitted that this Court had categorically held that in so far as the petitioners are concerned there are several disputes questions of facts which ought to be decided during the course of trial and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 9. The petitioners had relied on the relevant pages of his passport which indicate that the 1st petitioner was in Dubai as on the alleged dates of harassment. The allegation that the 3rd WP.No.2925 of 2024 respondent was left her parents’ house on 17.03.2019 by the petitioners is false and baseless as the 1st petitioner was not in India during that point of time. The petitioners have also filed several documents relating to his departure from India and also arrival into India together with copies of the Air Tickets. 10. Even as seen from the record, the manner in which the police have conducted investigation raises serious questions on the credibility of investigation. A complaint was lodged on 22.01.2020 before the Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent on the same day and at 05.00PM on the same day an FIR was registered. As many as statements of eight witnesses were recorded at 05.00PM. Statement of LWs.1 to 5 were recorded at the complainant’s house. Statement of LWs.6 to 8 were recorded at Kaikaluru. As seen from the statements of LW.6 is a resident of Chennai, LWs.7 and 8 are residents of Eluru. The 2nd respondent appears to have conducted spot investigation on the complaint of the 3rd respondent. 11. The credibility of investigation by the police and the sustenance of charge sheet on the investigation conducted by the police is to be tested in a trial before the learned Magistrate. All the grounds raised in the writ petition by the petitioners challenging the manner WP.No.2925 of 2024 of investigation and that such investigation would amount to no investigation is to be raised by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate would also be competent to consider the manner in which the 2nd respondent has conducted spot investigation in the case and filed a charge sheet at lighting speed. 12. Once the police have filed the charge sheet and the Court has taken cognizance, the charge sheet can be sought to be quashed by filing a quash petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., (now 528 of BNSS). A writ petition could be filed challenging the registration of FIR, but once the police have completed investigation and a competent Court has taken the cognizance of the charge sheet and issued summons to the accused; a writ petition challenging the charge sheet cannot be maintained. In the present case the petitioners have already filed a quash petition and the same was dismissed against the petitioners by the learned single judge of this Court. In such circumstances the petitioners cannot reattempt to seek quashing of CC.No.203 of 2020 against them by filing the present writ petition. 13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere and grant relief to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. WP.No.2925 of 2024 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 02.04.2025 KGM WP.No.2925 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.2925 of 2024 Dated 02.04.2025 KGM