HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4670 of 2​008 ORDER:- The two petitioners herein Kusurna Jyothi and Chodipalli Latha are A5 and A4 in C.C.No.1687 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short criminal Court). They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for quashing the criminal proceedings against them in the said criminal case. 2. Thus the only point which is raised for determination in this petition is whether the proceedings against both these petitioners in the aforesaid criminal case should be quashed. 3. The second respondent Surada Hemalakshmi is the de facto complainant in the said criminal case and she is the wife of Soorada Veerraju (A1) who is the first accused in the said case. A2 and A3 in the said case are the parents of the said Veerraju while the petitioners herein who are A5 and A4 are his married sisters and they are also the children of A2 and A3. The offences alleged in the said case are those punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Alleging the said offences, the de facto complainant gave a report in Visakhapatnam II Town Police Station and the said police registered that report as Crime No.537 of 2007 and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet in the criminal Court for the aforesaid offences and it took cognizance of the same as C.C.No.1687 of 2007 and issued process against all accused. 4. The plea of the petitioners herein is that they have been married long back and are living with their husbands and that the de facto complainant and her parents out of spite against them also included them as accused in the said criminal case for the aforesaid offences as if they have also harassed the de facto complainant and demanded additional dowry. Their version is that all the allegations are false and they never lived with their parents or the de facto complainant or her husband and they were simply included in the case by the de facto complainant only to harass them and that the concerned police without any proper investigation filed charge sheet against them and in view of this the proceedings against them in the aforesaid criminal case should be quashed. 5. Notice of this criminal petition was ordered to the second respondent and she entered appearance through a firm of lawyers called Master Key Law firm and the learned counsel representing the said firm argued the matter for her. 6. The allegations in the charge sheet disclose that the marriage of the de facto complainant with the first accused took place on 23.04.2007 and they lived for some time happily and they were also blessed with a daughter and that subsequently A2 to A5 along with A1 started harassing the de facto complainant and demanded her to bring additional dowry to clear their debts. It may be noted that both the petitioners i.e. A4 and A5 are described in the charge sheet itself as married women and that they are living with their husbands is not in dispute. The charge sheet is not clear as to how A4 and A5 had the need to harass the de facto complainant and coerce her to bring additional dowry. It is stated that A2 to A5 harassed the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry to clear their debts. It is however not made clear as to what were the debts of A4 and A5 and therefore the allegations in the charge sheet against A4 and A5 can be said to be vague. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the de facto complainant and her parents namely Koda Thoudu and Koda Rajulamma and also three others namely Kunchapu Adinarayana, Vasupalli Prabhavathi Naidu and Vasupalli Krishna Rao. A perusal of their statements would show that the main thrust was against the husband of the de facto complainant and his parents and the substance of their statements would indicate that they have also stated that along with the parents of A1 and A1 himself the present two petitioners who are the sisters of A1 have also mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant and coerced her to bring additional dowry. No specific allegations are made against the petitioners. It should also be noted that both the petitioners are married women and are living away with their husbands. Basing on these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that basing on the principles laid down in PREETHI GUPTA vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[1] the proceedings against both the petitioners should be quashed. 8. In PREETHI GUPTA’s case referred to supra the Honourable Supreme Court after considering the matter therein in a case relating to Section 498-A of IPC has been pleased to quash the proceedings against the married sister and a brother of the husband of the wife therein who were living away from them. In that context it was observed in the said decision that of-late in Section 498-A IPC cases it has become a habit for the wife to implicate each and every one in the family of her husband by giving exaggerated versions against them in order to harass them though they may not have any connection with the offences and though they were living away from the husband and the wife. In the said case, the Supreme Court has also been pleased to caution the members of the Bar and Bench to ensure that the innocent members of a family of a husband are not prosecuted. Keeping in view this principle it has to be seen whether the case against the petitioners herein should be quashed. 9. The material on which the case against the petitioners is based has already been set out supra. Both of them are married sisters of the husband of the de facto complainant and nothing is mentioned in the charge sheet or in the statements of the witnesses brought to my notice that they were living with their parents and the first accused when the alleged harassment has taken place. It is seen from the statements of the de facto complainant and her parents that both the petitioners also harassed her thus indicating that the main complaint was against A1 to A3. To repeat, the petitioners who are married women were living with their husbands. It is not made clear in the said statements as to how and in what circumstances they came and stayed with the family of the de facto complainant and her husband and her parents-in-law and harassed the de facto complainant. 10. The record, in my opinion, shows that the concerned investigating officer without verifying these aspects charge sheeted the petitioners also along with A1 to A3. One allegation made in the charge sheet is that at the time of marriage the parents of the de facto complainant gave a dowry of Rs.2 lakhs apart from articles worth Rs.50,000/- and further they also gave a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams i.e. some presents which are given to the sisters of the bride groom. It is not the case in the charge sheet or in the FIR that both the petitioners have demanded and taken that amount said to have been given towards adapaduchu lanchanam. In the above circumstances I am of the opinion that going by the principle laid down in PREETHI GUPTA’s case referred to supra it can be said that both the petitioners have been charge sheeted without any basis. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant however pointed out that this is a case where after the de facto complainant gave report to the police, the concerned police officer verified the allegations in the course of investigation and in his wisdom thought it fit to file charge sheet against the petitioners also and therefore it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations made against the petitioners even if taken to be true do not disclose any offence. There is no force in this contention in the circumstances of this case. The record would show that the petitioners are married women and are living away from their parents and brother and they have their own families. The statements of the witnesses and the allegations in the charge sheet only contain bald allegations against them and it can be said that they have been included in the charge sheet without a prima facie case. In the circumstances having regard to the principles laid down in PREETHI GUPTA’s case referred to supra it follows that the proceedings against both these petitioners should be quashed. The point is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and this criminal petition is allowed. 12. Parting with the matter it is however made clear that in the course of trial if evidence is forthcoming against these two petitioners also or anybody else the criminal Court is at liberty to proceed against them by invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 22nd March 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667