HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 2928 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A4 and A6 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC in CC No.441 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. It is stated that the lower court did not take cognizance of the case for offence punishable under Section 494/34 IPC against A5, who is alleged to be the 2nd wife of A-1. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A-1. A-3 and A-6 are matrimonial uncles and A-4 is brother of A-1. A-2 is wife of A-3. Marriage of A- 1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 06.03.1999 at Annavaram. Sometime after marriage, A1 and the 2nd respondent shifted their residence to Hyderabad and were doing Idly business. It is alleged that A-1 was harassing the 2nd respondent demanding her to bring Additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that when the 2nd respondent went to her native place and when she was at Hyderabad also, A-2 to A4 and A6 used to visit the house of A1 and harass the 2nd respondent to meet the demand of A-1. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that having regard to status of the parties and financial status of the 2nd respondent’s father, the alleged demand for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- is false and improbable. Truth or falsity of the demand basing on probabilities etc., cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is stated that A-1 obtained decree for divorce against the 2nd respondent in OP No.185 of 2002 by order dated 27-01- 2003 on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Lal Bahadur Nagar. It is an ex-parte decree for divorce. In any event it will not absolve criminal liability of A-1 for the offence of harassing while demanding additional dowry from the 2nd respondent prior to date of the decree. In so far as the A-2 to A4 and A6 are concerned, they are not directly interested in dowry or additional dowry that may be brought by the 2nd respondent into the family. They never resided along with A-1 at Sarabhavaram or at Hyderabad. Even if the allegation against them is true, mere suggestion to the 2nd respondent that she may adjust with A-1 and lead happy marital life, will not amount to the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Omnibus and general allegations were made against A2 to A4 and A6 without any specific instances. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that prosecution of A-2 to A4 and A-6 is abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing C.C. No.441 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Prathipadu, East Godavari District in so far as the petitioners 2 to 5/A2,A3, A-4 and A6 are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in so far as the 1st petitioner/A1 is concerned. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 01-10-2010 Mjl/*