ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The facts in brief as can be seen from record available before the Court are as under : a) On 06.05.2008 at 4.30 pm the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Woman Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad alleging that her marriage was performed with petitioner No.1 on 27.01.1999 as per Hindu customs and at the time of marriage, net cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and two thulas of gold and 8 thulas of silver and other household articles were given as dowry to the accused. During their wedlock, the de-facto complainant gave birth to two children. The first petitioner was addicted to bad vices and used to beat the de-facto complainant and thereby she started living at Hyderabad. b) On 22.07.2002 the accused have beat her mercilessly with a stick on her head with an intention to kill her for not fulfilling their demands and due to which the de-facto complainant went inside the house and bolted from inside and escaped from their clutches. On 15.02.2008 the de-facto complainant came to know that first petitioner married another lady and accordingly, she went to the place of her husband i.e., Pamarru village, wherein she met Bujju @ Prasanna and identified her as wife of accused No.1. On that the de-facto complainant has filed complaint before the Police. The Police have registered a case in Crime No.150 of 2008 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet, the cognizance of which was taken as C.C.No.300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. On completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet, the cognizance of which was taken as C.C.No.300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on the following grounds: i) Respondent No.2-de-facto complainant deserted petitioner No.1 on 22.07.2002 from Pamarru Village, Krishna District and since then she is living at Hyderabad with her parents. FIR No.150 of 2008 was registered by Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad on 06.05.2008, on which date no cause of action took place at Hyderabad. Hence, registration of Crime No.150 of 2008 is illegal and there is no territorial jurisdiction to the Police at Hyderabad to register the crime. ii) The petitioners are residents of Pamarru Village, which is 350 kilometers away from Hyderabad, as such, in order to drag the petitioners to such a long distance, the above crime was registered at Hyderabad. iii) Petitioner No.1 filed O.P.No.26 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada for restitution of conjugal rights on 08.04.2008. After receipt of summons in the said case, the de-facto complainant filed case in FIR No.150 of 2008 on 0605.2008 against accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, the case against accused Nos.4 to 10 was dropped and charge sheet was filed against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. iv) During the pendency of the O.P.No.26 of 2008, the first petitioner and de-facto complainant have compromised their disputes, wherein the de-facto complainant agreed to withdraw the criminal case filed against the petitioners and also agreed to obtain divorce by receiving Rs.2 lakhs towards full and final settlement i.e., Rs.50,000/- to the de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- to each of the children. Accordingly, the petitioner for conjugal rights was converted into petition for divorce and renumbered as O.P.No.24 of 2009, which was allowed by Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada on 30.06.2009. v) As per the compromise, Rs.50,000/- was received by de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- was deposited in LIC, Bhimavaram against each of the two children of de-facto complainant. However, the de-facto complainant did not cooperate for closing of the above mentioned calendar case. v) As per the compromise, Rs.50,000/- was received by de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- was deposited in LIC, Bhimavaram against each of the two children of de-facto complainant. However, the de-facto complainant did not cooperate for closing of the above mentioned calendar case. vi) When C.C.No.300 of 2010 came up for trial before the trial Court on 23.02.2016, the de-facto complainant instead of agreeing for compromise and to refer the case to Lok Adalat, had refused for the same and moreover demanded the first petitioner to make additional payment. 3. Now the point for determination is: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No. 300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 4. As seen from the record, notice sent to respondent No.2 was returned with postal endorsement “door locked”, as such notice sent to respondent No.2 is deemed to be proper service as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Thereby, arguments on behalf of respondent No.2 are treated as heard. 5. Heard Sri Y. Koteshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. Contents of charge sheet are taken as it is, there are no ingredients against the petitioners to see that they have committed offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the de-facto complainant, she married to the first petitioner on 27.01.1999 at Cherukuvada, Krishan District and after the marriage she has joined her in laws house at Pamarru Village, Krishna District. During the wedlock she gave birth to two children. Later the petitioners alleged to have started ill treating her and abusing her in filthy language and for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner failed to provide proper food to her and they also tried to get her pregnancy aborted and that on 27.07.2002 her husband and in laws beat her mercilessly with a stick on her head and tried to kill her. Out of fear, the de-facto complainant left that place and went to her parents’ house. If these averments are accepted, the marriage, alleged harassment by her husband and in-laws took place in the house of in-laws at Krishna District at about 20 years from now. Out of fear, the de-facto complainant left that place and went to her parents’ house. If these averments are accepted, the marriage, alleged harassment by her husband and in-laws took place in the house of in-laws at Krishna District at about 20 years from now. Therefore, entire cause of action in this case, took place in Krishna District and not in Hyderabad. However, the de-facto complainant has filed complaint at Hyderabad. 7. According to the de-facto complainant she came to know that the first petitioner got married to another woman, on which she went to the house of her husband at Pamarru village, wherein she found a lady and on questioning, the said lady revealed that she is the wife of first petitioner. Therefore, the cause of action for the de-facto complainant to file the complaint is not the harassment by the petitioner but the marriage of her husband with another lady, which she came to know on 15.02.2008. If really that is correct, the complaint should have been in respect of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against accused No.1 for alleged marriage with another woman during the subsistence of marriage. After 22.07.2002 when she left her in-laws house in Pamarru Village of her husband and started residing with her parents at Hyderabad, there is no complaint against the petitioners and no complaint is filed immediately after 22.07.2002, if at all there was any harassment by her husband and other family members. Therefore, the complaint dated 06.05.2008 is in respect of alleged harassment in the hands of the petitioners is prior to 22.07.2002 at Pamarru Village. 8. If at all there is any grievance against the petitioners, she should have filed complaint immediately after 22.07.2002. No explanation is offered as to why she has filed complaint in the year 2008, when harassment allegations were prior to 22.07.2002. Subsequent to 22.07.2002 the de-facto complainant and petitioners never resided together. Even if all the allegations are stated to be correct, there is no limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered as to why she has filed complaint in the year 2008, when harassment allegations were prior to 22.07.2002. Subsequent to 22.07.2002 the de-facto complainant and petitioners never resided together. Even if all the allegations are stated to be correct, there is no limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. The first petitioner has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada vide O.P.No.26 of 2008 on 08.04.2008, having received summons, the de-facto complainant has filed complaint on 06.05.2008 Vide Crime No.150 of 2008 before Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad at Hyderabad for the alleged allegations leveled against the petitioners that took place at Krishna District but not at Hyderabad. Therefore, until summons in O.P.No.26 of 2008 were received by the de-facto complainant, she has not though it required to file complaint. Hence, it is a clear case where the de-facto complainant waited for more than five years, has filed a complaint as counter blast to the case in O.P.No.26 of 2008. 9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, there are no merits in the case to proceed before the trial court and continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in respect of allegations of harassment by the petitioners, which were prior to 22.07.2002 at Krishna District amounts to sheer abuse of process of law. 10. The first petitioner has filed O.P.No.26 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada for restitution of conjugal rights on 08.04.2008. During the pendency of the O.P.No.26 of 2008, the first petitioner and de-facto complainant have compromised all the disputes between them, wherein the de-facto complainant agreed to withdraw the criminal case filed against the petitioners and also agreed to obtain divorce by receiving Rs.2 lakhs towards full and final settlement i.e., Rs.50,000/- to the de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- to each of the children of the de-facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per the compromise between the parties, Rs.50,000/- was received by de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- was deposited in LIC, Bhimavaram against each of the two children of de-facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per the compromise between the parties, Rs.50,000/- was received by de-facto complainant and Rs.75,000/- was deposited in LIC, Bhimavaram against each of the two children of de-facto complainant. Accordingly, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was converted into petition for divorce and renumbered as O.P.No.24 of 2009, which was allowed by Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada on 30.06.2009, wherein it was observed that the petitioner and respondent are residing separately since 6 years and there is no chance for reunion and that the respondent has no objection for grant of divorce. Therefore, it is evident that de-facto complainant has agreed for obtaining divorce from the first petitioner. In Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: “Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.” 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the principle laid down in the above said authority, the de-facto complainant having entered into a compromise with the first petitioner, has obtained divorce but failed to withdraw C.C.No.300 of 2010. Moreover, there is no cause of action for the de-facto complainant to file the complaint at Hyderabad in respect of the allegations, which alleged to have taken place at Krishna District prior to more than five years of lodging complaint. 12. Hence, viewing from any angle, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad amounts to abuse of process of law and thereby the petitioners are entitled for the relief of quashment of proceedings against them. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.300 of 2010 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.