THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4792 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Vedala Naresh, S/o.Ram Babu … Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4792 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A4 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.1028 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nidadavole along with three others. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is younger brother of A1. A1 to A3 are not figuring as petitioners herein. The offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is alleged against A1 only who is stated to have deceived the 2nd respondent and left her in Hyderabad Airport and flew to U.S.A. (United States of America). The offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are alleged against A1 to A3 only. Where as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is alleged against A1 to A4 put together. It is alleged that A1 to A4 were demanding balance of dowry of Rs.7.5 lakhs and were harassing the 2nd respondent at Pune where the parties lived together. It is further alleged that after A1 left for U.S.A., the 2nd respondent was residing both in her parents’ house as well as in her in-law’s house and that during that time, A2 to A4 harassed the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically and necked out of their house in January, 2008. 2. In her statement recorded by the Police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stated that when she and A1 were residing at Pune, A1’s parents came to Pune and harassed her for the sake of additional dowry. There is no allegation that A4 also went to Pune when the 2nd respondent was residing with A1 there. In her statement to the Police, the 2nd respondent stated that A4 also joined A2 and A3 in harassing her when she was residing in Velagalavaripalem along with A2 and A3. Except making general allegation of harassing her, the 2nd respondent did not make any specific allegation insofar as the petitioner/A4 is concerned with regard to harassment for the sake of additional dowry. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is a student in Engineering and that by making omnibus allegations, all family members of her husband were included as accused by the 2nd respondent. I am of the opinion that on vague and general allegations, the petitioner/A4 who was a student cannot be counter harassed by way of this criminal case. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A4, is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.1028 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nidadavole insofar as the petitioner/A4 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 11.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4792 of 2009 DATED: 11.03.2011 ysk