ORDER : THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short ‘Cr.P.C.’], by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.313 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[For short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[For short ‘DP Act’]. 2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Gulipalli Suraj, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, after obtaining divorce, Respondent No.2 lodged the present case against her husband and in-laws, who are Petitioners herein for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the divorce was obtained at Scotland at the instance of Respondent No.2 only, but there is no reference about the divorce in the complaint. Learned counsel would submit that the marriage between the couple had taken place on 08.02.2014 and after obtaining the divorce, Respondent No.2 got married to another person. Therefore, continuation of present criminal proceedings against the Petitioners for the alleged offences is mere abuse of process of law and prays for allowing the petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arun Jain & Others Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, SLP (Crl.) No.9178/2018, dated 01.04.2024. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the marriage of Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 was dissolved at the instance of Respondent No.2 by way of a decree of divorce at Scotland and after obtaining divorce, Respondent No.2 got married to another person and hence, the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. A bare perusal of the material on record would clearly show that Respondent No.2 and Petitioner / Accused No.1 have obtained decree of divorce dated 03.07.2017 from Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court, Scotland. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that Respondent No.2, after the said decree of divorce, married to another person. 5. A bare perusal of the material on record would clearly show that Respondent No.2 and Petitioner / Accused No.1 have obtained decree of divorce dated 03.07.2017 from Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court, Scotland. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that Respondent No.2, after the said decree of divorce, married to another person. Considering the submissions made and in the backdrop of the legal position referred to supra, as there is no dispute about obtaining the divorce by Respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 is an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.313 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.