IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7684 of 2007 Between: Polu Raghunatha Reddy And others …Petitioners AND Bhumireddy Viritha And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7684 of 2007 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners, Smt P.Rajani Reddy, learned counsel representing the ﬁrst respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent. 2. Sri Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in the charge sheet, if carefully examined, except A-1, general allegations have been made against the other accused. Learned counsel also would maintain in the present Criminal Petition, second petitioner is the brother of A-1 and the third petitioner is recently married and is residing with her husband. Learned counsel would further maintain that the fourth petitioner - mother-in-law of A-1 also had been impleaded as a party only with a view to coerce to have some settlement and this is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portion of the order dated 27.12.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.1298 of 2006 wherein, it was observed as follows. It is not in dispute that A2 and A5 are residing in Kummarapalli and that A4 is studying post graduation at Kadapa whereas the alleged incidents occurred at Kurnool. Further the case diary reveals that as the defacto complainant herself in her statement stated that she smelt gas and that leakage of gas may be intentional or accidental, Section 307 I.P.C. is deleted. It is also not in dispute that A1 ﬁled a petition seeking divorce against the defacto complainant. The allegations made against the petitioners are vague. Details of alleged harassment by A1 at the alleged instigation of petitioners are not given in the complaint. No speciﬁc overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, which attract the alleged offences. Thus it is for the investigation agency to ﬁnd out the truth or otherwise of the allegations now made against the petitioners by defacto complainant. A2 and A5 are old and A4 is an unmarried girl studying post graduation. It is not a case where custodial interrogation is required. Ultimately, learned counsel representing the petitioners prays this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and accordingly allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Smt P.Rajani Reddy, learned counsel representing the ﬁrst respondent had taken this Court through the allegations made in the FIR and would fairly maintain that no doubt Section 307 I.P.C. had been deleted, but however, speciﬁc allegations relating to demand of additional dowry had been made against each of the accused and ultimately, she contends that this is not a ﬁt matter to be interfered with by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’, for the purpose of convenience) and as such, prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out the relevant portions of the FIR and also the relevant portion in the charge sheet and would maintain that it may be true that for want of suﬃcient material, the deletion of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. had been done. However, in the light of the voluminous evidence shown in the memo of evidence and also in the light of the speciﬁc stand taken that certain attempts have been made to settle the matter amicably and since such attempts were not fruitful, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that this is not a ﬁt matter to be interfered with by this Court at this stage and prays this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record. 6. The petitioners, in the present Criminal Petition ﬁled under Section 482 of the Code, are arrayed as A-2 to A-5 in C.C.No.288 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station ﬁled charge sheet against the petitioner and another i.e. A-1 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the charge sheet, may be narrated as hereunder. The defacto complainant (P.W.1) B.Vinitha was a resident of Jammalamadugu, now residing at Pondicherry. A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. Petitioners 1 and 4 are parents of A-1. The 2nd petitioner is the brother of A-1. The 3rd petitioner is the sister of A-1. 8. It is also stated that P.W.2 - Bhumireddy Bramhananda Reddy is the father of the defacto complainant. P.W.4 is the mother of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was working as Lecturer/Asst. Professor in G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool. P.W.1 arranged the marriage of A-1 with P.W.1. On demand by the accused, P.W.s 2 and 4 presented dowry of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.06.2005 and Rs.10,00,000/- cash on 23.06.2005 in the presence of P.W.s 4 and 7 and also presented gold jewelry worth about Rs.15,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 24.06.2005, P.W.s 2 and 4 performed the marriage of P.W.1 and A-1 at Umesh Chandra Kalyana Mandapam, Kadapa. Later, the defacto complainant joined A-1 at Kurnool. At that time, the parents of the defacto complainant gave Rs.1,50,000/- for establishment of family. 9. It is further stated that on 09.07.2005, P.Ws.2 and 4 left to Pondicherry by leaving P.W.1 at Kurnool. Since then, A-1 started enquiry about the properties owned by the defacto complainant and started her harassing her for unlawful demand of Rs.35,00,000/-. P.W.1 innocently informed about the property at Tirupati. The accused harassed her by saying they would have get more dowry if A-1 would have married another lady. Thus the accused harassed P.W.1 for Rs.35,00,000/- or to get the property of P.W.4 transferred in the name of the accused. A-1 physically abused P.W.1 and further the accused hatched a plan to end the life of P.W.1 by leaking the gas. The accused leaked the gas and asked her to get coﬀee. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to kitchen and got odour small of gas. P.W.1 luckily escaped. On 27.07.2005, A-2 to A-5 left to Kadapa. A- 1 threatened her if they did not comply with the demand, he would not allow her parents to come and further would not send P.W.1 to her parents house. On 08.08.2005, P.W.4 visited the house of the accused and they did not show any interest. Thereafter P.W.4 asked the help of P.W.21. On that P.W.21 advised to put a clinic for A-1 for livelihood. 10. It is also stated that on 14.08.2005, A-1 visited Pondicherry and pressurized P.W.1 to ask P.W.s 2 and 4 to get the properties transferred in his name. Thereafter, A-1 took P.W.1 forcibly to Kurnool on 15.08.2005. There was a quarrel between A-1 and P.W.1 with regard to the house. Though P.W.1 was suﬀering from fever, A-1, being Doctor never provided treatment. On the information given by P.W.1, P.W.s 2 and 4 came to Kadapa on 06.09.2005. On 07.09.2005, they went to the house of the accused. A- 1 went out from the house and did not return home. Later A-2 to A-5 came there and went to the house of P.W.20 as A-1 was in her house. Thereafter, one Rajagopal Reddy, Ex MLA conducted mediation and the accused stick to their demand and tried to assault. Hence, P.W.1 went back to Pondicherry. Thereafter, Dr.D.L.Ravindra Reddy, MLA, entrusted the matter to Dr.Bali Reddy and he also failed to settle the matter. 11. It is also the case of the prosecution that later A-1 sent a notice to P.W.1 and P.W.1 sent reply notice. On 17.10.2006, at 07:00 P.M., P.W.2 went to the house of A-2 to A-4 and asked them to give the address of A-1 and they denied to give the address. With great diﬃculty, they got vague information that A-1 is working at Sai Vamsi Hospitals at Hyderabad. A-1 refused to attend the mediation. On 13.11.2006, P.W.1 received divorce notice from A-1. Lateron, P.W.1 presented a report before Mahila Police Station, Kadapa. 12. Further, speciﬁc stand had been taken that there is no truth in the allegations made against the petitioners. The petitioners are all residents of Kummarapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. The alleged incident occurred at Kurnool. Petitioners 1 and 4 are parents of A-1 and are old. Petitioner No.2 is an unmarried girl at the time of the incident living with their parents and studying at Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa. 13. It is also stated that A-1 ﬁled D.O.P.No.71 of 2006 on 13.11.2006 seeking divorce against the defacto complainant before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. Even prior to that on 09.06.2006, the counsel for A-1 gave legal notice to the defacto complainant stating to come and join with A-1. The defacto complainant gave reply to the said notice on 22.06.2006. After ﬁling the divorce O.P., the present complaint given by the defacto complainant as a counter blast to the divorce O.P. on 08.12.2006. The defacto complainant in her statement stated that she smelt gas leakage of gas as may be intentional or accidental. Hence Section 307 I.P.C. deleted. 14. It is no doubt true that speciﬁc allegations had been made as against A-1 and other allegations had been made against other accused as well. The ﬁrst petitioner herein is the father of A-1, second petitioner is the brother of A-1 and the fourth petitioner is the mother of A-1. The third petitioner, even as per her age, should have been young and prosecuting her studies at the relevant point of time and subsequent thereto, after marriage, she is living with her husband separately. 15. Inasmuch as the allegation made against the third petitioner, who was only a student at the relevant point of time being vague, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings insofar as it relates to the third petitioner and the Criminal Petition, insofar as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 4, is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, are quashed, insofar as it relates to the third petitioner only. The Criminal Petition, insofar as it relates to the petitioners 1, 2 and 4, stands dismissed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 10, 2010 Bvv