HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8792 OF 2009 DATED.30-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 (For short, ‘A-4’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.521 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyala, Kurnool District, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (In short, ‘The Act’) in so far as A-4 is concerned. 2. Whereas the petitioner is A-4, the respondent No.2 is the de- facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A-1 in the case was performed on 25-04-1999 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- cash and 10 tulas of gold ornaments were given to A-1. After the marriage, they lived happily only for three months and during their marital life, they were blessed with one female child. Thereafter, A-1 at the instigation of his father A-2, his mother A-3 and his sister A-4 used to harass the de-facto complainant mentally and physically even for minor issues abusing her in filthy language. Subsequently, the de- facto complainant informed the same to her parents who later pacified the situation. But, thereafter also there was no change in the attitude of A-1 and instead A-1 to A-4 developed hostility and used to beat her for bringing additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents for securing a job to A-1, A-2 to A-4 finally beat the de-facto complainant and pushed out her along with her female child from the matrimonial house demanding to bring the additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, A-1 to A-4 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. The contention of learned counsel for A-4 is as follows : Admittedly A-1 issued legal notice to the de-facto complainant on 22- 06-2009, for divorce, and as a counterblast the complaint was filed on 27-06-2009. Admittedly, A-1 filed O.P. on the file of Judge, Family Court at Kadapa seeking for the dissolution of the marriage between them on 04-07-2009. The learned counsel for A-4 further contends that A-4 has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motives to black mail and coerce A-1 to come to terms with the complainant. In fact, A-4 is residing at Ananthapur working as Assistant Professor of Radio Diagnosis in the Government Medical College, Anantapur, whereas A-1 to A-3 used to live at Kadapa and the de-facto complainant has been living at Nandyal and there are no specific allegations and there are only bald allegations against her. Hence, the entire proceedings against A-4 in C.C. No.521 of 2009 are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto that prima-facie there is material to prosecute A-4 for the alleged offences and unless necessary trial is conducted it cannot be said that she is innocent of the charges. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 209 7. I have gone through the record. There are no specific allegations against A-4 and they are only bald in nature. It is further pertinent to note here that Section 498-A is being misused widely by reason of which the marriage system is being very much affected. In cases of this nature relatives of husbands are being impleaded without any basis with ulterior motives. Such a practice is to be curbed. Accordingly, with the above observations the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.521 of 2009 pending on the file of the Court Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Kurnool district, in so far as A-4 is concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:30-11-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8792 OF 2009 December 30, 2011 DSH