ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. Crl.P. No. 10010 of 2015 1. The petitioner-T. Swamy is the accused in CC No. 290 of 2015 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, outcome of Cr. No. 376 of 2014 of Abids Road Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 497 and 506 IPC on the complaint dated 15.11.2014 of Ch. Sunil Reddy. 2. The contents of the complaint of Ch. Sunil Reddy in registration of crime supra are that the complainant is resident of Indira Nagar, NGO's Colony Road, Hanmakonda, working as Software Engineer who married to one K. Rajyalakshmi, working as Woman Sub-Inspector of Mahaboobnagar Rural with the consent of both side elders. In marital tie, she got pregnant confirmed by Dr. Sandhya Rani, on 30.8.2014 and after that she went to her parents home at Khammam on applying leave for three days. After she resumed to duty, she took a new home without informing to her husband-the complainant and after some days, with the help of Circle Inspector of WPS Subedari, she met him in Landmark Hotel, Hanamkonda and stated that she was aborted 10 days back and left away without stating any more particulars. Some days later, when the complainant spoke to Circle Inspector supra and ASP M.V. Sreekanth, they told that they will look into the matter but they did not inform anything. After that when he spoke to his wife Rajyalakshmi, she asked him to come to Hyderabad as she was in Assembly bandobast duty. He told her that he would come by 15.11.2014 early morning to the Brindavan Hotel, Abids where she got accommodation as he did not get train tickets and when he called his wife many times, she did not reply. Then thinking that she was in some problem, he came in a flight from Chennai to Hyderabad on 14.11.2014 to Brindavan Hotel by 11.00 p.m., and contacted the receptionist about her room and when he pressed calling bell, she opened the door slightly with an improper nightwear and not allowed him to enter into the room but when forcibly entered, he saw a man wearing pant and shirt. Then he shouted and after seeing him the man immediately ran away from the room. Then he shouted and after seeing him the man immediately ran away from the room. When he questioned his wife why she is cheating him, she said that he cannot do anything with her and threatened him and made him to walk out of the room. The man was caught by the hotel guys and when he asked the man who he was, the man threatened to kill him. On his enquiry, he knew that the man was Swami, Circle Inspector of Kareemnagar. Then he immediately went to Abids Road Police Station and lodged a complaint against said Swami. 3. The police after registering crime and completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet citing 10 witnesses viz.; complainant as LW1, Ch. Rajyalakshmi as LW2, the eye-witnesses as LWs.3 to 8 and two Sub-Inspectors and one Inspector, who registered the crime, arrested the accused and filed charge-sheet as LWs.8 to 10, stating that on verifying the C.C. footage of Brindavan Hotel, Abids it is found that on 14.11.2014 at 22.21 hours, the accused entered into the room of victim in Brindavan Lodge, Abids and half an hour later the complainant came to the Lodge and made enquiry in the reception about his wife-LW2 was in Room No. 217, went to the room and pressed the bell and after three rings only, LW2 opened the door slightly but by seeing her husband, she did not allow him into the room, immediately the accused ran away escaping from the room boy-LW5 who tried to stop him which is clearly noticed through cameras. Further the LW10 collected call details of personal cell phone number of accused i.e. 9908896098 from the period 1.11.2014 to 23.11.2014 wherein it shown that the accused regularly used to contact the LW2 on her official cell phone No. 9440904667 and on the fateful day also there was conversations between them which is well establishing that the accused Inspector of Police III Town Police Station Karimnagar reported for Assembly bandobust duty on 11.11.2014 morning at Gate No. 1, he was given accommodation of Dwaraka Hotel, Lakidikapool whereas Smt. Rajyalakshmi was provided in Brindavan Lodge and she was reported to duty on 3.11.2014. On 14.11.2014 at 22.56 hours the complainant on knowing that his wife was in Room No. 217 of Bridnavan Lodge he went to the room and pressed calling bell, she slightly opened the door and when he was in shock, the accused ran away escaping from the hotel staff who tried to catch him. In the charge-sheet further mentioned that the presence of accused alongwith Rajyalakshmi during odd hours of night time inside the lodge room by bolting inside clearly indicates that they are having illegal contact and she was in improper night wear and did not allow her husband to come inside the room and accused absconded from the scene by seeing the complainant strongly establishes their illegal contact. The CC TV footage collected from the Hotel also indicates the entire episode and confirms the accused absconded from the scene. The dress worn by Smt. Rajyalakshmi is clearly seen in the CC TV Footage. Crl.P. No. 5055 of 2017 4. The petitioners 1 to 3 viz: husband (complainant in CC No. 290 of 2015), father-in-law and mother-in-law (parents of the complainant in CC No. 290 of 2015) respectively of 2nd respondent-complainant (LW2 in CC No. 290 of 2015), are A1 to A3 in CC No. 122 of 2017 on the file of the 1st Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The said Calander Case is taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the DP Act') and Sections 66-A and 67-A of Information Technology Act (for short, 'the IT Act') on the protest petition proceedings of the de facto-complainant covered by the order dated 20.3.2017 in Sr. No. 3347 of 2017, against the police final report of the Cr. No. 164 of 2014 WPS Warangal Urban filed after investigation and the same is the impugnment herein. 5. No. 3347 of 2017, against the police final report of the Cr. No. 164 of 2014 WPS Warangal Urban filed after investigation and the same is the impugnment herein. 5. In Crl.P. No. 10010 of 2015 heard Sri C. Nageshwara Rao, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri E. Venkata Reddy for the petitioner and Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant who is 1st petitioner in Crl.P. No. 5055 of 2017; and Sri D. Bhasker Reddy learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto-complainant in Crl.P. No. 5055 of 2017 and the learned Public Prosecutor in both the cases for the State and perused both the quash petition averments, First Information Report, docket order in Sr. No. 3347 of 2016, the police final report and cognizance orders respectively. 6. The sum and substance of accusation in the First Information Report in registration of the crime on 19.11.2014 for the offences supra was from the report of the de facto-complainant stating that she married Ch. Sunil Reddy-Al no other than son of Venkat Reddy and Suguna the A2 and A3, a Software Engineer, resident of Indira Nagar, NGO's Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal District, on 28.11.2013, though demanded for cash of Rs. 10 lakhs dowry and 20 tulas of gold, after persuasion by her parents, brother and uncle that was settled for cash of Rs. 3 lakhs and 15 tulas of gold and after marriage, the de facto-complainant joined A1 in the in-laws house at NGO's Colony, Hanmakonda, by then A1 was working at Fidility Software Company at Chennai and was visiting twice a month for a night stay and they led marital life happily for one month and later the accused persons demanded her to hand over her entire salary as she is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, even she obeyed her husband for never giving her any amount for her personal expenses by taking entire amount and in the absence of her husband, the in-laws used to make her to attend on household work without even little affection towards her and also started demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs. 7 lakhs from her parents and when she refused, they kept on harassing her mentally and physically with a threat to continue ill-treatment till provides additional dowry and they poisoned the mind of A1 also for the ill-treatment but she put up with patience hoping a change from them but in vain. Even they did not allow her to visit her parents house nor her parents to visit her and on one occasion they did not allow her parents into the house saying unless they meet demand of additional dowry, they will not be allowed. Her husband A1 was questioning her fidelity always and used to check call logs of her cell phone by making enquiries by doubting her character on all calls which she made as a part of her job. In April, 2014, when she was on Election Bandobusth Duty at Janagaon, as she was not allotted any accommodation for stay, she was to stay at the house of a Senior Sub-Inspector by name Venkaiah, PS Janagoan, aged about 57 years having wife and grandchildren. Even for that her husband picked up a quarrel and abused in filthy saying how dare she was to leave out of the station without his permission even on election duty and give divorce to her by unheeding her persuasion of she was at Election bandobusth duty. Even after her return from election duty the accused not allowed her into matrimonial house and abused by questioning her character. The A1 also abused her by saying had they performed his marriage with another girl, he would have got more dowry and when she tried to enter the house, they beat and necked her out of their house which constrained her to go to her parents place and after elders intervention she joined back. The A1 also abused her by saying had they performed his marriage with another girl, he would have got more dowry and when she tried to enter the house, they beat and necked her out of their house which constrained her to go to her parents place and after elders intervention she joined back. In the first week of October, 2014, all the accused again picked up a quarrel with her and abused and threatened her saying unless their demand is met, the A1 will not live with her and give divorce to her for which she called her parents who requested and pleaded their inability to provide additional dowry, but the accused never heeded and necked her out of the house from which she lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Warangal Rural where police held counseling and advised the accused not to harass her, the Al, having assured to do so, even thereafter they made her unbearable to live in the company of A1 and to stay herself separately at Revenue Colony, Hanmakonda and even thereafter the A1 was calling her over phone and was abusing and used to send text messages in hundreds questioning her fidelity and threatening to kill her and for that her parents and relatives got held Panchayat on 21.10.2014 in Landmark Hotel Hanmakonda where also they reiterated demand for additional dowry and parting of entire salary of her, else the A1 was going to divorce her. It is further averred that when she was deputed to attend Telangana Assembly Elections, Hyderabad bandhobust duty on 1.11.2014, she was allotted accommodation in Room No. 217, Brindavan Lodge, Abids, Hyderabad, the A1 again started calling her and started sending text messages to her phone saying as "eevaritho enjoy chestunnav, phone off chest pandaga chesukunnava, ratri haga enjoy chesav kada, ee Saturday, Sunday nenu ranu kada, Sunday assembly kuda vundadu kada, ni abhimanulu Hyderabadlone vuntaru kada, full enjoy chesuko Sunday, papam em tension padakule, nuvu na daggaraki rakunna niku em takkuva kadu, okka pillalu vundaru ane kani, anni normalga vuntaf and also used to threaten her so to defame her and to give divorce to her and to kill. Unable to tolerate his torture, she stopped responding to him. Unable to tolerate his torture, she stopped responding to him. While so, on 14.11.2014 at 9.00 p.m., after completing her duties when reached her accommodation, she again received threatening messages from A1 and being fed up with the same, she decided to commit suicide having seen no meaning in her life from the physical and mental harassment continuously caused by her husband and in-laws and informed the same to her Senior Colleague T. Swamy who advised her not to take any extreme step and he immediately rushed to her accommodation and Counseled her at about 10.30 p.m. Al without any information rushed into her accommodation and started abusing her in filthy and questioning her fidelity and character with her senior colleague and the senior colleague left the premises and immediately thereafter the A1 attacked her with hands and threw her on the ground and strangled her with intention to kill saying he would kill her and for her hue and cry, the Lodge staff came and rescued her and on seeing them, the A1 left and she was escaped from him having received injury on left elbow and hip and was shocked due to sudden situation and could not immediately come out. Hence to take action. 7. There is delay of 4 days even to give report for the occurrence by her from 14.11.2014 night the incident took place in the Lodge at Hyderabad till her reporting to the Police at Warangal on 19.11.2014 though she can give the report immediately at CCS, WPS Hyderabad or in the concerned Police Station of Abids having jurisdiction as the Lodge situates in Abids. She being a police officer, could not even wait without even reporting immediately. Leave it as it is, the police, after investigation in referring the case as false that was running in 11 pages showing 23 witnesses were examined including the de facto-complainant and there are video recording of the statements of the LWs.7 to 20 also besides newspaper clipping collected so also the marriage photos and the FIR and statements in Cr. No. 376 of 2014 under Sections 497 and 506 IPC of Abids Police Station Hyderabad from LW21 so also the duty particulars of Telangana Assembly election of the de facto-complainant and the accused in Cr. No. 376 of 2014 under Sections 497 and 506 IPC of Abids Police Station Hyderabad from LW21 so also the duty particulars of Telangana Assembly election of the de facto-complainant and the accused in Cr. No. 376 of 2014 and copy of charge-sheet and the C.C. camera footages relevant thereto and stated after registration of the present crime and after examination of the defacto-complainant supra from what she reported the FIR contents supra, secured presence of LWs.2 to 11-parents, elder brother of the complainant and marriage elders, Panchayat elders and Circle Inspector of Police, Karimnagar respectively, and examined and recorded their statements and in the course of further investigation, examined LWs.12 to 14-(LW12 house owner of A1 and LW1, LW13 another tenant of LW12, LW14 receptionist in the Lodge) so also LWs.15 to 19-Manager and staff of Brundavan Lodge, Abids and those statements covered by video coverage and also examined the LW20-the videographer from the complaint of A1 herein with the facts stated supra in Crl.P. No. 10010 of 2015. 8. After that incident the de facto complainant demanded before LW23 saying after her reaching Warangal she will implicate A1 to A3 on dowry harassment and it is under the circumstances establishing though the A1 to A3 never harassed her as alleged in her report and statement as it is a false blame for A1 caught her red-handed in a lodge room with the LW11 from the another opposite was covered by relay caused in TV Channels and including English and Telugu and in order to have revenge against the A1 to A3, she foisted a false complaint to WPS Warangal, with baseless and absolutely false allegations and the legal opinion obtained from the investigation also confirmed the same thereby referred as false case. It is therefrom she raised protest petition as a private complaint by repetition of the facts in saying the Investigating Officer from the crime registered by the police mainly relied on Cr. No. 376 of 2014 of Abids Police Station though in fact the A1 telephoning to LW11, accused in Cr. It is therefrom she raised protest petition as a private complaint by repetition of the facts in saying the Investigating Officer from the crime registered by the police mainly relied on Cr. No. 376 of 2014 of Abids Police Station though in fact the A1 telephoning to LW11, accused in Cr. No. 376 of 2014 and asked him to go to the room of LW1 and to settle matrimonial dispute as LW11 is her well wisher and therefrom without grasping the intention of A1, LW11 came to the room of LW1 as she expressed her intention to commit suicide unbearable with harassment of A1 and the A1 taken the presence of the LW1, it is a concocted and false case with an intention to defame the A1 who is complainant in Cr. No. 376 of 2014 and police unilaterally closing the case as false by referring to that and thereby protest raised by her to be accepted. 9. The docket order of the learned Magistrate in accepting the protest petition by saying the defacfo-complainant/protest petitioner gave her statement so also her father Sathyanarayana Reddy and one Narayana Reddy, Hanamkonda Sub-Inspector of Police in their saying additional dowry demand and the LW3 was also one of the elders at Landmark Hotel in the Panchayat conducted on 21.3.2014 besides one C. Janardhan Reddy and thereby the case is made out to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. 10. Now coming to the quash petitions, it is not what the statements contained alone that is criteria but for the entire material as mere allegation making out a case by itself is not sufficient to sustain the accusation and the proceedings when from total and overall appreciation of the facts, it indicates the accusation is for extraneous reasons as referred supra for the alleged incident if at all happened of A1 came to the Lodge and attacked her on 14.11.2014 night, there is nothing prevented she being a Police Officer and her husband is only a Software Engineer to report to the Abids Police Station and there was no meaning in her waiting for 5 days that too coming to Warangal and giving report, leave about she never whisper about any dowry harassment earlier but for in the report dated 19.11.2014 which shows as a counterblast to the Cr. No. 376 of 2014 registered against her so called paramour-LW11 of this case Inspector of Police, a superior officer which he states that he was present with her in her room even after 10.30 p.m., by the time A1 herein came to the Lodge by 11.00 p.m., to meet her being the husband of her. There is no basis for her to say all of a sudden to decide to commit suicide and all of a sudden she informed to LW11 and all of a sudden he came to her and stayed back at odd hours in her room at night. For all these reasons, it is crystal clear that the police who are not enemies to the other police, that too for no motive to attribute and the investigation fairly done in the final report, there is no basis to raise protest against police final report to take cognizance in a slipshod manner for the offences punishable under the sections supra from the impugned order by the learned Magistrate insofar as CC No. 122 of 2017 concerned and as such same is liable to be quashed. 11. Now coming to CC No. 290 of 2015 the offence under Section 497 IPC is a non-cognizable one for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on the police final report outcome of Cr. No. 376 of 2014. In fact, even the offence under Section 506 IPC is also non-cognizable one for the police to register crime and file final report for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance for not a case of invoked Section 155 Cr.P.C. to obtain permission of Magistrate to register a case. It is not a case of private complaint procedure followed though de facto-complainant can be said to be the aggrieved. When both are non-cognizable offences for not even single cognizable offence to make other non-cognizable as cognizable offence, leave about how far Section 497 IPC struck down from the statute book operates retrospectively, even without going into the merits, the very cognizance order of the learned Magistrate from the final report right from the registration of the crime in the non-cognizable offence per se unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Thereby the cognizance order in CC No. 290 of 2015 also set aside. 12. Thereby the cognizance order in CC No. 290 of 2015 also set aside. 12. Having regard to the above and to sub-serve the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process, both the criminal petitions are allowed by quashing the proceedings in (a) CC No. 290 of 2015 (Crl.P. No. 10010 of 2015) on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad outcome of Cr. No. 376 of 2014 of Abids Road Police Station, and (b) CC No. 122 of 2017 (Crl.P. No. 5055 of 2017) on the file of the 1st Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal outcome of Cr. No. 164 of 2014 of W.P.S. Warangal Urban against the respective petitioners/accused and they are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.