HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7045 of 2009 and 5609 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in both the petitions who are A.2 to A.5 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A.2 is sister and A.4 and A.5 are parents of A.1 who is husband of the de facto complainant/1st respondent. A.3 is husband of A.2. A.1 is not figuring as petitioner herein. Both the counsel placed copies of charge sheet, F.I.R. and statements of witnesses recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. before this Court. After filing of the petition, A.2 died. Therefore, these petitions survive insofar as A.3 to A.5 are concerned. It is contended by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the allegations mentioned in F.I.R. and in statements of witnesses taken on their face value, do not amount to any of the offences for which the police instituted the charge sheet in the lower Court. To appreciate the said contention, a detailed look into the allegations made by the 1st respondent is necessary. On the other hand, it is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that there was unbearable torture to the de facto complainant by all the accused and that A.1 is now enjoying his life in USA and filed divorce petition against t h e de facto complainant in Family Court and that the allegations made by the de facto complainant do constitute the offences herein. Marriage of A.1 with the 1st respondent took place on 24.01.2007. It is alleged that at the time of marriage in pursuance of demand made by in-laws, her parents gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, 40 tolas of gold ornaments, 3 kgs of silver articles and other household articles and that after marriage, the de facto complainant went to Palkole for leading family life and was there for 4 days and that subsequently A.1 and the de facto complainant went to house of A.2 and A.3 at Moulali and stayed there for one week and that during that time, A.1 started abusing her on the ground of he not liking her and that subsequently both of them went to Palkole where A.4 and A.5 did not like any work turned out by her and were harassing her by abusing her. A.1 and the de facto complainant went to USA on 03.03.2007. It is alleged that A.3 and A.4 used to telephone to A.1 daily and inform tales about the de facto complainant, on which A.1 used to abuse and beat her and that on one day A.1 made a burning injury on her thigh with heated spoon and that A.1 was harassing her by saying that he did not like her body structure. It is further alleged that on 28.03.2008 A.1 sent the de facto complainant to India asking her to bring A.4 and A.5 and that during that time she stayed in her in-laws house for one month and during that time A.4 and A.5 did not like any of her works and were used to abuse her in filthy language. Subsequently the de facto complainant is stated to have shifted to her parents house for preparing for GMAT. It is alleged that A.2 asked her as to why she remained in her parents’ house and also asked her to go over to A.2’s house and thereupon the de facto complainant went to their house and that A.2 and A.3 were making the de facto complainant to do entire work in their house and used to abuse her on the pretext of they not liking her work. It is further alleged that A.1 asked her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents so that house plots may be purchased in the names of A.4 and A.5 so that they would get visa to USA and thereupon her father gave Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing plots on the names of A.4 and A.5. On 16.06.2008 the de facto complainant took A.4 and A.5 to USA. It is alleged that after some time A.5 was abusing her as if she was leading her life happily there and that in September, 2008 when A.5 was preparing fryums in the house, A.1 beat the de facto complainant on the ground that she made A.5 to work in that house, and that when the de facto complainant went and sat in front of her house, A.1 again beat her by going there and A.4 threatened her to see her end and therefore on that night the de facto complainant went to the house of A.1’s friend who is their neighbour and came back to A.1 on the next day and that since then A.1, A.4 and A.5 were harassing her by abusing her for each and everything. It is further alleged that in November, 2008 she returned to India along with A.4 and A.5 and A.4 and A.5 were not allowing her to speak to her parents. It is further alleged that on 30.05.2009 A.1 and the de facto complainant came back to India from USA and went to the house of A.2 where A.2 and A.5 abused her by reminding the previous events. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant’s father’s health was not good, she went to her parents house and that none of the accused came to her to take back her to them. It is specifically alleged that when the de facto complainant contacted A.1 by phone, A.1 asked her not to come back as he did not want her and that when she contacted A.2 by phone she asked the de facto complainant to transfer all her properties in the name of A.2 so that they would take back the de facto complainant into their family. It is further alleged that A.1 was threatening her by phone and that A.1 did not make arrangements for her renewal of visa and that A.1 stated that he vacated the house in USA. Under Section 498-A IPC, every type of harassment either by the husband or by relations of the husband would amount to an offence thereunder. Section 498-A IPC reads as follows: “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means- a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” This is not a case where any of A.3 to A.5 are alleged to be guilty of any wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the de facto complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the de facto complainant. So, clause (a) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC has no application herein. There is no allegation of harassment of the de facto complainant which harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by the de facto complainant or any person related to her to meet such demand. The entire allegations do not indicate any demand for any property or valuable security coupled with harassment of the de facto complainant. Even with regard to the parents of the de facto complainant arranging Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of plots in the names of A.4 and A.5, such a demand is stated to have been made by A.1 only. Neither A.4 nor A.5 made any such demand, muchless any harassment was alleged coupled with the said demand. Therefore, there is absolutely no allegation touching clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC in this case. Simply because there was incompatibility between the couple and the alleged harassment by A.1 for personal reasons, it will not mulct any of A.3 to A.5 with any criminal liability under Section 498-A IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Insofar as the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, there is no allegation that any of A.3 to A.5 made any specific demand for dowry muchless any part of the dowry was paid to A.3 to A.5. Thus, viewed from any angle, even if the allegations in this case are taken on their face value, the case does not attract any of the above penal provisions against A.3 to A.5. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.2054 of 2009 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar insofar as A.3 to A.5 are concerned. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 15th December, 2011. PNV