IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9134 of 2009 DATE:07.12.2011 Between: N.Satyanarayana Prasad and another …… Petitioners And State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and another ...Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9134 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 498- A, 506/34 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with another. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-1 is not ﬁguring as petitioner herein. All the accused are residents of U.S.A at various places. The entire oﬀences as per prosecution case are stated to have occurred in U.S.A. Apart from the ground under Section 188 Cr.P.C, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that entire charge sheet, F.I.R and statements of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C do not disclose any oﬀences against the petitioners who are A-2 and A-3. All the allegations are against A-1 only. A-2 and A-3 were not residing with A-1 generally. The report in this case was given to the police by father of the victim woman who is wife of A-1. Strangely the investigating oﬃcer did not even record statement of the victim woman in this case; and in spite of it has chosen to ﬁle charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 closing investigation. It is alleged that A-2 abused the victim woman stating that she might have given poison coﬀee to his son, and that A-3 abused her and insulted her in the marriage to the eﬀect that she was not interested in marrying her son and scolded and threatened the victim woman of severe consequences if she did not act according to their terms and conditions. There is no allegation of harassment of the victim woman by A-2 or A-3 demanding any property or additional dowry or valuable security as gifts. It is not a case where the victim woman committed suicide or caused danger to her limb etc., because of harassment by any of the accused. Therefore, this case does not attract Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. Further, this case also does not attract clause (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. Similarly Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have no application in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. The allegations against A-2 and A-3, in my opinion are not suﬃcient to attract the oﬀence under Section 506 I.P.C also. I am of the opinion that this case cannot be continued against A-2 and A-3 who are the petitioners herein as the case against them is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law. 2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.304 of 2009 on the ﬁle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 07, 2011 ksh