THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6838 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.407 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District registered for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3 The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The marriage of the complainant was performed with A.1 in the case on 07.12.2006. Prior to the engagement of the marriage A.2 and A.3 i.e. parents of A.1 in the case demanded the father of the de facto complainant to pay Rs.4.00 lakhs as dowry. Further, on the date of engagement, which took place on 27.07.2006, A.2 and A.3 demanded further a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh apart from Rs.4.00 lakhs, which was already demanded and accordingly those amounts totalling to Rs.5.00 lakhs were given to them as dowry. The father of the de facto complainant had also given Rs.5,000/- to A.1 for the purchase of suit, Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of bike and spent Rs.3.00 lakhs for performing the marriage. Apart from that some gold ornaments were also given to the de facto complainant. After the marriage, A.1 to A.3 started harassing her for bringing more dowry from her parents. Further, A.4 in the case who is the brother of A.1 and A.5 their close relative who also stay in the same house, used to demand the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry and on her failure to do so, A.4 used to represent that A.1 would pronounce Tallak to her and marry A.5 in the case. That the de facto complainant could not bear with the harassment meted. 4 Heard the learned counsel for A.4 and A.5, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. 5 The learned counsel for the accused has contended that no prima facie case is made out against A.4 and A.5 and main allegations are made only against A.1 to A.3 and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has opposed the application claiming that there are specific allegations against A.4 and A.5 also. 7 The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings impugned? 8 Having gone through it is clear that no specific overt acts or allegations are attributed against A.4 and A.5. In fact, the allegations made against them are only bald in nature. 9 It is to be emphasised that Section 498-A of IPC is widely misused by reason of which the system of marriage is being affected very much. In cases of this nature, an attempt is being made to rope in as many relatives of the male spouses as possible to achieve some object, which practice is to be curbed. Further, by unnecessary implications, even genuine cases of harassment of wives by their husbands and in laws would be defeated. 10 For the aforesaid reasoning, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.407 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District are hereby quashed, insofar as A.4 and A.5 are concerned. ---------------------------------------- G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 28.12.2011 Kvsn