IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10443 of 2009 DATE: 29.09.2010 Between: Pulamarasetty Bala Murali Krishna and others …… Petitioners And: The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10443 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 11/A-1 to A-11 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109, 120-B I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.261 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is father of the victim girl who is cited as second witness in the charge sheet. A-1 is husband of the victim. A-2 and A-3 are parents, A-4 is younger brother, A-6 is married sister of A-1. A-11 is wife of A-4. A-4 and A-11 are residents of the United States of America. A-5 is husband of A-6. A-7 and A-8 are sisters of A-3. A-9 and A-10 are daughters of A-8. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 collected cash of Rs.3,00,000/- deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, demand draft for Rs.70,200/- and also furniture value of Rs.29,800/- and that another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was collected by A-5 and A-6 towards Adapaduchu lanchanam. Marriage of A-1 with the victim took place on 21.06.2003 at Visakhapatnam, where the above dowry etc., were collected. It is alleged that after marriage, all the accused 1 to 11 started harassing the victim for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- or in the alternative to have immediate construction of flat over residential building of the 2nd respondent. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that general and omnibus allegations were made against all the accused even though they are residents of different places and different countries with a view to falsely roping in all family members and relations of A-1 into this offence. It is further contended that if really allegations made by the 2nd respondent are true and correct, the 2nd respondent or the victim would not have kept quiet for more than three years after separation of A-1 from the victim in for the year 2004 itself and that since the year 2004, there is litigation between the parties by way of filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights, filing petition for maintenance and interim maintenance and also filing case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that if the allegations are true, the 2nd respondent should have filed this case even in the year 2004 itself. Truth or falsity of the allegations based on probabilities or improbabilities cannot be considered in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the lower Court to decide the said question basing on the evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial. It has to be seen whether the allegations are palpably absurd and whether they are engineered with oblique motive of abusing process of Court. In so far as A-1 to A-3 and A-6 are concerned, there are definite allegations with regard to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though A-5 is stated to have liaised between the two parties prior to the marriage, he was not a beneficiary of the dowry, but his wife A-6 was the beneficiary in receiving Adapaduchu Lanchanam which is part of dowry. General allegation of A-2 to A-11 instigating A-1 when both the couple were at U.S.A by contacting A-1 by phone, cannot be foundation for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Using the relationship, asking the 2nd respondent to join as a member in a private chit run by A-8, cannot be basis for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Because of certain petty events narrated by the 2nd respondent and the police in the charge sheet towards the alleged harassment of the victim by the other relations of A-1 cannot be equated with an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Mere harassment of the wife is no offence under Section 498-A I.P.C, unless the harassment resulted in death of the wife or the harassment was coupled with demand for dowry, additional or any other presents as contemplated under clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. If allegations in the charge sheet are looked into towards that end, it follows that those allegations cannot amount to an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C in so far as A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-11 are concerned. This Court is of the opinion that the said accused are entitled for relief in this petition as prosecution of them is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.261 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in so far as A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-11 who are the petitioners 4, 5 and 7 to 11 are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3 and 6/A-1 to A-3 and A-6 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 29, 2010 KSH