ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.1852 of 2014 pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri Karri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Though notice was sent to the 2nd respondent, she did not contest the matter. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the petitioner/accused. She lodged a report with III Town Police Station on 08.08.2014 and she was directed to Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam to report the matter against the petitioner/accused. She filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner/accused was continuously harassing her both mentally and physically by beating with hands and with a penknife demanding her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry and Rs.30,000/- for looking after her two daughters, from her parents. When the 2nd respondent informed her in-laws about the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused, they did not question him and in turn, had supported him. The 2nd respondent informed the same to her parents and raised disputes before the elders at the house of the petitioner/accused at Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem. But, the petitioner/accused abused the elders and necked them out of the house saying that they should not interfere with his family disputes. On the basis of the report given by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.69 of 2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City by the Inspector of Police. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima-facie evidence against the petitioner/accused regarding his complicity in the commission of the said offences, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is pending before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam vide C.C.No.1852 of 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the 2nd respondent made a false complaint against the petitioner. Petitioner/accused filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it was allowed and the 2nd respondent had not joined to lead the conjugal life. The said case is pending before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam vide C.C.No.1852 of 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the 2nd respondent made a false complaint against the petitioner. Petitioner/accused filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it was allowed and the 2nd respondent had not joined to lead the conjugal life. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused filed a petition for a decree of divorce and the same was also allowed on 02.04.2009. After the lapse of nearly 5 ½ years, the 2nd respondent had given a report against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by making false allegations. As such, the present prosecution under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is not maintainable. It is further contended that the said orders are not set aside by any Court nor pending before the concerned Courts. Therefore, he would pray for quashing the said charge sheet against the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition contending that there are clear allegations against the petitioner/accused. On account of his conduct, the 2nd respondent was forced to stay away. With a fond hope that the petitioner would change his attitude, the 2nd respondent had not given a report to the Police prior to the filing of the above referred O.Ps. There are certain instances with regard to the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused to the 2nd respondent with illegal demand for dowry, both physically and mentally and as such, the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Further, he would submit that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner/accused that there are no allegations against him with regard to the commission of offences. Therefore, he would pray for the dismissal of the criminal petition. 6. Apropos the contention that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted on 11.02.2008, and the 2nd respondent did not join with the petitioner/accused to lead marital life, and further Apropos the contention that a decree of divorce was granted dissolving the marriage of the accused and the de facto complainant on 02.04.2009, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable. 7. 7. As can be seen from the decrees passed in O.P.Nos.28 of 2008 and 918 of 2008, it is evident that the said decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 11.02.2008 and the decree of divorce was passed on 02.04.2009 and they were exparte decrees. Now, it is relevant to note that the present report was lodged on 08.08.2014, much later after passing of the aforesaid decrees, regarding the harassment said to have been caused to the de facto complainant by the petitioner/accused by making illegal demand for additional dowry, which took place after granting decree of divorce. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the report dated 08.08.2014 lodged by the 2nd respondent much later to the decrees of restitution of conjugal rights and divorce, is manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with an ulterior motive. The prosecution of the petitioner/accused is not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. 8. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner having parted ways and having taken recourse to the Courts for obtaining a decree of divorce, it appears to be highly improbable that the petitioner/accused would have harassed the 2nd respondent. The abnormal delay of nearly 5 years and 4 months in lodging the report is not explained by the 2nd respondent satisfactorily and does not convince the Court to continue with the criminal prosecution. 9. In a decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings. 9. In a decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings. They are, (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in State of Haryana & Others Vs. 10. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others (referred to supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the report lodged by the 2nd respondent is manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with an ulterior motive. The prosecution of the petitioner/accused is not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. In the background of no reasonable explanation being given regarding such delay of 5 years 4 months in lodging the report, subsequent to the date of granting of decree of divorce dated 02.04.2009, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused on the basis of vague allegations that he was harassing for additional dowry, cannot form basis to continue the criminal prosecution. 11. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge or to cause harm or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. In these circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner are not sustainable. 12. Therefore, in the above circumstances, on an overall consideration of the entire material placed on record and the contentions urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused are without any substance and the material produced before this Court directly indicates the malafides in the prosecution of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, so also the abuse of process of the Court. There are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the above crime. 13. For the reasons indicated above, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1852 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.