THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2594 of 2007 Date: 15.7.2010 Between: Y.Rajeswari and another. …………Petitioners/accused A3 & A4. And The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …………….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2594 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the accused-A3 & A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint in C.C.No.472 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur alleging commission of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The defacto-complainant is the wife of A1. The 1st petitioner (A3) is the sister of A1 and the 2nd petitioner (A4) is the brother-in-law of A1. Within six months of the marriage of the defacto- complaint with A1, it was alleged that A1 started harassing the defacto complainant for dowry, and, ultimately, sent her away from his house. It is said that when his demand of Rs.50,000/- was not satisfied by the parents of the defacto-complainant, A1 left her at parental house and put up a separate residence. However, on 12.3.2006, again A1 told the defacto complainant that the money which was given by her parents is not sufficient and asked her to get her share under a proper document executed by her patents, other wise he would not lead his conjugal life with the defacto- complainant and went away his parental house leaving the complainant alone for four days. Thereupon, having come to know that A1 was at his parents’ house. The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) went there and it is alleged that A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 beat the defacto complainant indiscriminately and necked her from the house with a demand to get the landed property registered in her name from her parents. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the version of the defacto complainant in the report lodged by her with the police is that A1 was only harassing her with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents’, but with a view to harass all the family members along with A1 in the concluding paragraph of the complaint so also in the charge sheet , the names of the petitioners are included. I have gone through the contents of the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the allegation is the demand of additional dowry against only A1. Nowhere in the report or in the charge sheet, it is mentioned at what time and in which manner these petitioners demanded the defacto complainant to bring additional dowry. The learned counsel submitted at the hearing of the petition that the 2nd petitioner (A4) was working as Head Constable in APSP, Kadapa and residing there itself along with his wife (A3). In any event, it is not at all the case of the defacto-complainant from the beginning that these petitioners were harassing her with a demand to bring additional dowry. It is evident from her case that they used to instigate A1. In my view merely because a sweeping allegation is made in the report as well as in the charge sheet to the affect that on a particular date these petitioners also beat the defacto complainant along with the other accused and sent her away from the house demanding her to get the immovable property registered in her name by her parents, it would be nothing but an abuse of process of law, if these petitioners are made to face the trial. Since admittedly they never lived with the defacto complainant and A1 at any point of time and were living elsewhere, the allegation made against them ex facie appears to be false. On the aforesaid analysis, it is expedient in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2006 against the petitioners A3 & A4 only. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2006 in so far as they relate to A3 & A4 are quashed. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 15.07.2010 mrb