JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ A-1 to A-4, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad (XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 497 and 506 of I.P.C. 2. The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the XIIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. Basing on the said reference, the Police, Women Police Station, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.610 of 2015. The allegations in the complaint are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the father of one Jhansi Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the victim"). 1st petitioner/A-1 is the husband of victim; petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A-2 and A-3 are parents, 4th petitioner/A-4 is the sister and Accused No.5 is the second wife of the 1st petitioner/A-1. It is stated in the complaint that the victim studied Engineering and employed in Infosys, Hyderabad, prior to the marriage. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant performed the marriage of the victim with the 1st petitioner/A-1 on 25.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, petitioners/A-1 to A-4 demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- towards dowry, but the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant paid Rs. 3.00 lakhs and apart from that 10 tulas of gold ornaments to his daughter, two tulas of gold chian, one tula of gold ring to the 1st petitioner/A-1 and also 20 tulas of silver items, household articles and furniture worth Rs. 1.00 lakh were given to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. After the marriage, the victim joined the 1st petitioner/A-1 at her in-law's house at Adilabad and after few days they both returned back to Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner/A-1 left for Bangalore as he was having employment there. After three months, the 1st petitioner/A-1 returned back to Hyderabad as he got job at Hyderabad and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim lived in the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for a period of one month and later shifted to a rented house at Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, and they lived happily for some time. After three months, the 1st petitioner/A-1 returned back to Hyderabad as he got job at Hyderabad and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim lived in the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for a period of one month and later shifted to a rented house at Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, and they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started harassing the victim to give her total salary to him, but she agreed to give part of the salary as she will have her own personal expenses. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner/A-1, at the instigation of the 2nd petitioner/A-2, who used to visit them, started abusing the parents of the victim and that the victim informed the same to her parents, who in turn requested them not to harass the victim. However, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 created a quarrel, assaulted and abused the victim and sent her to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant's house, while she was carrying three months pregnancy. Thereafter, the petitioners/ A-1 to A-4 never visited the victim and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 refused to take any responsibility. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant incurred all the medical expenses pertaining to the delivery of the victim. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant invited the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for naming ceremony of the child, they attended the function, but un-necessarily created a quarrel for the reasons best known to them and when the victim requested them not to create a scene, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 abused them and left the place. The elders by name Mr.K.Vanamali and Mr.G.M.Mahatma, who were present at the time of naming ceremony function, observed the behaviour of the petitioners/ A-1, A-2 and A-4 and that they advised them not to harass the victim and requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to take back the victim to his company. Due to the said mediation, the victim joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A-1 along with her child. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 joined the victim and the 1st petitioner/A-1 on the pretext that she will look after the child. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to spend her total salary for his personal use without looking after the welfare of the child. It is further stated that on 15.12.2008, when the victim returned home from office in the evening, her child was crying with high fever. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to spend her total salary for his personal use without looking after the welfare of the child. It is further stated that on 15.12.2008, when the victim returned home from office in the evening, her child was crying with high fever. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 never informed the same nor tried to take the child to any doctor and when the victim requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to come along with her to show the child to a children specialist, he refused for the same. In that situation, the victim informed the same to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who came to their house and took the child to a doctor for treatment. On the same day night at about 10.00 P.M., petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 assaulted the victim mercilessly, abused her and necked her out from the house by snatching all her gold ornaments. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came along with his son and found the victim outside the house along with child and when he tried to request petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 to open the door, they refused to allow them inside the house. As there is no other alternative, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has taken the victim to his house and since then she is living with her parents. Later, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant along with elders approached the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 and requested them not to harass the victim and to take her to the matrimonial house, but they refused to have any talks with them. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came to know that the 1st petitioner/A-1 left for U.S.A. without intimation to them. In spite of e-mail, dated 13.07.2009 sent by the victim to the 1st petitioner/A-1, there is no response from him. As there was no response from the 1st petitioner/A-1, the victim left for U.S.A. on 21.12.2009 and doing a job and since then her child namely, Siddartha, now aged about 8 years, is living with the parents of the victim. In spite of e-mail, dated 13.07.2009 sent by the victim to the 1st petitioner/A-1, there is no response from him. As there was no response from the 1st petitioner/A-1, the victim left for U.S.A. on 21.12.2009 and doing a job and since then her child namely, Siddartha, now aged about 8 years, is living with the parents of the victim. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant got information that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 have performed the marriage of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with another lady by name Jaya Lakshmi Jasthi (Accused No.5) at Arya Samaj, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad on 16.02.2011 and both are living happily at U.S.A. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant approached the Manager, Arya Samaj, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad, and procured the marriage certificate of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with Accused No.5, dated 15.02.2011. Thus, the 1st petitioner/A-1, who cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the victim with a mala fide intention and married another lady by suppressing the fact of his existing marriage, dated 25.02.2007 with the victim, filed Divorce O.P.No.605 of 2015 before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, left to U.S.A., without informing the victim. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondentState and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 would submit that the 1st petitioner/A-1 filed O.P.No.1211 of 2009, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, for restitution of Conjugal Rights, which was dismissed for want of whereabouts of the victim; that the victim without any information to the 1st petitioner/A-1 left the Country and living separately since seven years; that the 1st petitioner/A-1 also filed O.P.No.605 of 2015, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion of continuous period of more than six years and the same is pending; that the 1st petitioner/A-1 sent e-mails to the victim on 02.06.2009 and 06.07.2009 requesting for settlement of the disputes amicably. He further submits that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 and the 3rd petitioner/A-3 are Senior Citizens and they are parents of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and after retirement of the 3rd petitioner/A-3 they have been living at Adilabad and never joined the family of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and they were unnecessarily roped with a malicious intention to harass them and that the allegation that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 instigated the 1st petitioner/A-1 etc., has been invented for the purpose of this complaint. He further submits that the second marriage of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with Accused No.5 is an inter caste marriage and is against the customs and rites of their community; that the complaint did not disclose any allegation against the 3rd petitioner/A-3. He further submits that the 4th petitioner/A-4 is the sister of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and she is living separately with her family and that the complaint does not disclose any specific incident of her involvement in the day-to-day life of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim. He also submits that the Apex Court recently ruled that the High Courts can quash F.I.R. against a person, if it did not disclose any offence; that the ingredients of Section 498-A of I.P.C. do not applicable to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 since the period of cohabitation of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim is only for a limited period i.e., from 25.02.2007 to 15.12.2008 and during this period, the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim were living separately; that the ingredients of Sections 494, 497 and 420 of I.P.C. are not applicable to petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A-2 to A-4 since the marriage between the 1st petitioner/A-5 is an inter caste marriage and that the complaint under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the accused is not maintainable after a gap of more than seven years. He further submits that the complaint is irregular as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint suffers from basic requirements under Sections 198 and 198 (a) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that without making a complaint before police, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in order to take vengeance against the petitioners/accused. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 AIR(SC) 2756 ; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 2 SCC 1 and K.Bharati @ Padma and another v. Chandrakala and another, 2016 1 ALD(Cri) 579 . 5. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant reiterating the contents in the private complaint, would submit that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be decided after conducting investigation and the F.I.R. cannot be quashed at the threshold. 6. As seen from the allegations in the complaint, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4, except the bald and general allegation that the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 harassed the victim i.e., daughter of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. Since all the allegations are attributed against the 1st petitioner/A-1 only, the proceedings in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 are liable to be quashed. 7. Insofar as the 1st petitioner/A1 is concerned, a perusal of the complaint and the material in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the 1st petitioner/A1 on the basis of which the impugned F.I.R. can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426 ; State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cri) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Mohd. Saraful Haque and another, 2005 SCC(Cri) 283 . Hence, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad, insofar as the 1st petitioner/A1 is refused. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 are hereby quashed. 9. The Criminal Petition insofar as the 1st petitioner/A1 is dismissed. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.