THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7258 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 8/A2 to A9 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.455 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case against A1 is pending as C.C.No.326 of 2008 in the same Court. A1 is stated to be in U.S.A. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A2 is mother and A3 is sister of A1. A4 is husband of A3. A5 and A6 are parents of A4 and parents-in-law of A3. A7 is paternal uncle of A1. A8 is maternal uncle of A1. A9 is cousin of A1, A9 being son of another paternal uncle of A1. A2 is a resident of Siripuram village of Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. A3 and A4 are residents of Nalgonda Town. A5 and A6 are residents of Palliwada village of Ramannapet Mandal. A7 is a resident of Hyderabad. A8 is a resident of Aregudem village of Gurrampode Mandal of Nalgonda District. A9 is a resident of Siripuram. All the petitioners/A2 to A9 are residing in their respective houses at different places and pursuing their occupations. A3 and A4 are Government teachers. A9 is another Government servant. Except their relationship with A1, there is nothing common among A2 to A9. Insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned, there is allegation to the effect that at the time of marriage of A1 with the 2nd respondent, dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, gold worth Rs.10,00,000/-, silver ornaments and adapaduchu katnam of Rs.5,00,000/- were given to the in-laws. This Court, in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into truth or otherwise of the said allegations, as it is a question of fact to be decided by the Magistrate during trial after recording evidence of both the parties. The said averment positively attracts provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A2 and A3. After marriage held on 15.12.2005 at Hyderabad, the couple left for U.S.A. on 26.12.2005. It is alleged that A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent mentally and physically whenever A2 and A3 call him from India and that A2 and A3 were demanding plot of 300 sq. yards to be purchased immediately in the name of A3 at Hyderabad by the parents of the 2nd respondent on the ground that A3 served their family. Subsequently, there appears to be separation between the couple. A1 approached U.S Court for divorce, whereas the 2nd respondent approached Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, for divorce. It is stated that divorce was obtained between the parties. Subsequent divorce between the parties cannot absolve either the parties to the divorce or their relations from criminal liability on facts which took place prior to grant of divorce. On perusal of the charge sheet which contains details of investigation and the conclusion arrived at after investigation by the Investigating Officer, I am of the opinion that there are only general, vague and omnibus allegations insofar as A4 to A9 are concerned. The question of A4 to A9 harassing the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry or presents never arose and they were not and cannot be recipients of any benefit or gift either in the past or in future from the 2nd respondent or her family members. Simply because A4 to A9 also participated in the marriage talks in which dowry and adapaduchu katnam were fixed, it will not make them criminally liable for the said participation in marriage talks. Thus, on perusal of the entire record, I am satisfied that there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings in this case insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned; and at the same time, continuation of criminal proceedings against A4 to A9 on general, vague and omnibus allegations would be nothing but abuse of process of law. This case relating to A4 to A9 is an example of unreasonably stretching offence under Section 498-A IPC against each and every relation of the husband. In the result, the criminal petition is partly dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.455 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioners 3 to 8/A4 to A9 are concerned. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dated: 21.03.2011 v v