IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2009 DATE:03.03.2011 Between: Bhallam Sarojini Devi and others …… Petitioners And Smt.Bhallam Ananthalaxmi Satyavathi and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 7/A-2 to A-8 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.35 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada. A- 1 who is not a petitioner herein, is husband of the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant. A-2 and A-3 are parents, A-4 is married sister and A-6 and A-8 are brothers of A-1. A-7 is wife of A-6. A-5 is daughter of A-4. At the time of marriage of A-1 with the 1st respondent, dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, cashew garden of Ac.1-00, 13 tolas of gold, Hero Honda motor cycle were given by parents of the 1st respondent to A-1 and his family members. It is alleged that subsequent to the 1st respondent joining A-1 in the joint family house, A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 started harassing her for the sake of additional dowry and that on 3 or 4 occasions, parents of the 1st respondent gave to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and that even after the 1st respondent delivered, none of the accused came to see the 1st respondent and newly born child demanding further dowry. It is also alleged that even after separate family set up by A-1 with the 1st respondent, at the instance of A-2, A-3 and A-6 to A-8 went to their independent house and began harassing the 1st respondent for the sake of additional dowry and were instigating A-1 against the 1st respondent for the sake of additional dowry. It is alleged that A-7 with the intention of getting her sister married with A-1, was instigating A-1 against the 1st respondent. The report given by the 1st respondent to the police graphically describes various instances of the alleged harassment meted out by A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 to her for the sake of additional dowry and for sale of property standing in her name. In view of the definite and detailed allegations made by the 1st respondent against A-2, A-3 and A-6 to A-8, I do not find any reasons to grant relief to them in this petition, as it would be a question of fact to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence, whether the said allegations are true or false. Taking the allegations of their face value, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in so far as A-2, A-3 and A-6 to A-8 are concerned. 2) In so far as A-4 and A-5 are concerned, there are absolutely no allegations of any harassment made by them towards the 1st respondent muchless for the sake of any dowry or additional dowry or presents. The only allegations made against them is that in case A-1 gives divorce to the 1st respondent, then other accused intended to perform marriage of A-1 with A-5 by taking more dowry. The said allegation, even if true, will not attract any penal liability either under Section 498-A I.P.C or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A- 4 and A-5 are not members of joint family of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8. Therefore, prosecution of A-4 and A-5 in this case amounts to abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.35 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada in so far as the petitioners 3 and 4/A-4 and A-5 are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 7/A-2, A-3 and A-6 to A-8 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 03, 2011 ksh