THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition Nos.530 & 638 of 2008 Date : 19-3-2010 Between : Koppolu Pullaiah s/o.Sainna and others .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition Nos.530 & 638 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. Both these Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the questions involved in both these matters. Several grounds had been raised and elaborate submissions had been made by the Counsel on record. 2. The facts, as reflected from the charge sheet are as hereunder:- 3. On 21-5-2006 the 3rd respondent filed charge sheet before S.H.O. stating that at the time of marriage her parents paid Rs.40,000/- as dowry and that one year back her husband sent her and her sons out of the house to get additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. Further it is stated that her parents paid Rs.1 lakh and with the said money her husband constructed house at Pottisriramulu cross roads. In the year 2005, during Uppalamma festival, her sisters-in-law Aruna, Bharathi and Kalamma demanded payment of Rs.15,000/- for which she refused. Later, on 25-4-2005 her husband and the said sisters-in-law beat her indiscriminately and demanded Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and sent her out. Later her husband got issued a registered legal notice alleging that she is not coming for living together to which the 3rd respondent sent a reply to which her husband also replied. The caste elders reprimanded them and sent the 3rd respondent to her matrimonial home. On the ground that the 3rd respondent complained before the elders, she was harassed in several ways. When the parents of the 3rd respondent came to know this, they have sent Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry. Having taken the money, the husband of the 3rd respondent behaved good for one month and again later he started harassing her and her in-laws Pullaiah and Lakshmamma, brother-in-law Venkateshwarlu, sisters-in-law Aruna, Kalamma, Bharathi, Vijayalakshmi and husbands of sisters-in-law Ramachandraiah, Raparthi Lakshmaiah, Mandasu Venkanna sent me out two months back and demanded additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. It is also further stated that on 21-5-2006 at 4.00 p.m. when called before the elders, the husband of the 3rd respondent, the in-laws, sisters-in- law, brother-in-law and husbands of sisters-in-law Ramachandraiah, Raparthi Lakshmaiah and Mandasu Venkanna abused her as Lanjamunda and threatened that they will not leave her even if she brings Rs.1 lakh and bow before them and that they will kill her if she again demands panchayath. On that, the S.H.O., P.S. Suryapet registered Case No.205/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet against the petitioners under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A separate Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the said case. 4. It is also further stated that the 3rd respondent filed Maintenance Case No.21/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet against her husband Koppolu Nagabhushanam (A-1) on 27-5-2006. Further it is also stated that on 17-8-2006, the 3rd respondent, as natural guardian of her sons filed civil suit O.S.No.250/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet for partition against her husband (A-1), father-in-law (1st petitioner) and brother-in-law (3rd petitioner) and obtained temporary injunction restraining alienation of properties. Further it is also stated that the petitioners 3, 4 7 and 8 are residents of other towns away from Suryapet. There is no nexus between the allegations as there is a long gap of 16 years from the date of marriage. It is absurd that the sisters-in-law demanded Rs.15,000/- after 16 years of marriage more particularly when there was no such demand from the date of the marriage. It is not even alleged that at the time of marriage there was any amount paid to them as Aadapaduchu katnam. The petitioners are having children who are grown up and are ready to be married. The allegation that the husband wanted to construct building near Pottisriramulu Center Suryapet, even if it is true the same does not amount to demand for dowry. Further it is also stated that there is no necessity for the petitioners to demand any money from the 3rd respondent for construction of building by her husband. If really the alleged acts in 2004 are true, the 3rd respondent would have filed the complaint then itself. The delay in filing the complaint is fatal as it gave scope for deliberations and creation of events and the same goes a long way about the falsity in the case. The petitioners are innocent and busy in their family matters. The marriage of the daughter of the 3rd respondent is settled. The 3rd respondent foisted the false case against the petitioners to wreak vengeance. 5. Likewise, in Crl.P.No.638/2008 it is stated as hereunder:- On 21-5-2006 3rd respondent filed a report stating that her marriage with Nagabhushanam was performed 16 years back as per the customs prevailing in their caste and at the time of marriage her parents paid Rs.40,000/-, 3 tulas of gold, 10 tulas of silver, leg straps and household articles worth Rs.15,000/- as dowry. They were blessed with three sons viz., Santosh Kumar-14 years, Sai kumar-13 years and Sravan Kumar-11 years. It is further stated that one year back the husband of the 3rd respondent sent his sons and the 3rd respondent out of the house to get additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh and with the said money he constructed a house at Pottisriramulu Cross Roads. The 3rd respondent and her husband lived happily till Ugadi festival in 2005. In 2005 Uppalamma festival was performed and during the said festival her sisters-in-law Aruna, Bharathi and Kalamma who came also demanded payment of Rs.15,000/- for which the 3rd respondent refused. The said sisters-in-law with the connivance of her husband abused her and beat her. Later on 25-4- 2005, the husband of the 3rd respondent and her said sisters-in-law beat her indiscriminately and demanded Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and otherwise warned her not to stay in house and sent her and the children out of the house. Later, the husband of the 3rd respondent got issued a registered legal notice alleging that the 3rd respondent is not coming for living together to which the 3rd respondent sent a reply. The husband of the 3rd respondent sent another reply to her reply and as such the 3rd respondent approached the caste elders who reprimanded them and sent her to her matrimonial home. On the ground that she complained before the elders, the 3rd respondent was harassed in several ways. When her parents came to know this, they have sent Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and having taken the said money the husband of the 3rd respondent behaved good for one month and later he started harassing her and her husband, in-laws Pullaiah and Lakshmamma, brother-in-law Venkateshwarlu, sisters-in-law Aruna, Kalamma, Bharathi, Vijayalakshmi and husbands of the sisters- in-law Ramachandraiah, Raparthi Lakshmaiah, Mandasu Venkanna sent the 3rd respondent out two months back demanding additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. As the parents of the 3rd respondent did not pay the said amount, the 3rd respondent and her children were sent out. Then the 3rd respondent approached he caste elders who promised to discuss the matter by calling them. On 21-5-2006 at 4.00 p.m. when called before the elders, the husband of the 3rd respondent, in-laws, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law and husbands of the sisters-in-law Ramachandraiah, Raparthi Lakshmaiah and Mandasu Venkanna told that they will not take her to home unless additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh is paid. When they came out of Panchayat the husband of the 3rd respondent, in-laws, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law and husbands of the sisters-in-law Ramachandraiah, Raparthi Lakshmaiah and Mandasu Venkanna abused the 3rd respondent as Lanjamunda and that no one cam pluck a hair from them and elders Panchayat will not yield anything near Pottisriramulu Center. They also threatened that they will not leave her even if the 3rd respondent brings Rs.1 lakh and bow before them and that they will kill her if she again demands Panchayat. The elders present made them escape from them and therefore she demanded action against those demanded additional dowry, harassed, threatened to kill and those who sent her children and her from the house. 6. It is also further stated that on 17-8-2006, the 3rd respondent as natural guardian of her sons, filed civil suit O.S.No.250/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet for partition against her husband (A- 1), father-in-law (1st petitioner) and brother-in-law (3rd petitioner) and obtained temporary injunction restraining alienation of properties. Further it is also stated that the 3rd respondent filed M.C.No.21/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet against her husband Koppolu Nagabhushanam (A-1) on 27-5-2006. The 3rd respondent also filed Case No.2/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet against the petitioners under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. A separate Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the said case. 7. Further it is stated that the petitioners 3,4, 7 and 8 are residents of other towns away from Suryapet. There is no nexus between the allegations as there is a long gap of 16 years from the date of marriage. It is absurd that the sisters-in-law demanded Rs.15,000/- after 16 years of marriage more particularly when there was no such demand from the date of the marriage. It is not even alleged that at the time of marriage there was any amount paid to them as Aadapaduchu katnam. The petitioners are having children who are grown up and are ready to be married. The allegation that the husband wanted to construct building near Pottisriramulu Center Suryapet, even if it is true the same does not amount to demand for dowry. Further it is also stated that there is no necessity for the petitioners to demand any money from the 3rd respondent for construction of building by her husband. If really the alleged acts in 2004 are true, the 3rd respondent would have filed the complaint earlier. The delay in filing the complaint is fatal as it gave scope for deliberations and creation of events and the same goes a long way about the falsity in the case. The petitioners are innocent and busy in their family matters. The marriage of the daughter of the 3rd respondent is settled. The 3rd respondent foisted the false case against the petitioners to wreak vengeance. 8. Several grounds also had been specified. 9. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations made in both these matters. It is no doubt true that the petitioners 1 and 2 are of advanced age. But however, when specific allegations had been made on the ground of age alone, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Liberty is given to the petitioners 1 and 2 to make appropriate application in this regard if they are so advised. 10. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petitions shall stand dismissed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 19-3-2010 AM