HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.924 of 2007 Dated: 01-10-2010 Between: A.Indrakaran Reddy & Another …Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.924 of 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 in C.C.No.187 of 2003 pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Nampally, Hyderabad wherein the petitioners are facing trail for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. A.1 is the husband and A.3-second petitioner herein is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant-second respondent herein. A.2-first petitioner herein is the uncle of A.1. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Nampally, Hyderabad complaining harassment at the hands of the accused. The matter was referred to the police for investigation. On investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the accused, which discloses that the marriage between the de facto complainant and A.1 took place on 19.6.2002. A.1 is a Green Card holder and residing in U.S.A. After the marriage, he returned back to U.S.A. in August, 2002. It is alleged that after the marriage, A.1 and A.3 along with A.2, who is the uncle of A.1 started harassing the de facto complainant mentally and physically and she was necked out from in-laws house. A.1 left the complainant alone in India and went to U.S.A. A.2 and A.3 conspired with A.1 in sending him to U.S.A. without the knowledge of the complainant. The sworn statement filed along with the charge sheet also discloses that the first petitioner, uncle of A.1 acted as surety in front of the A.C.P., Women Police Station, Begumpet on 28.5.2003; that after the complaint, A.1 to A.3 told her that they will take care of her and her baby and would send her to U.S.A. along with her husband-A.1; that the first petitioner refused to take her to her husband’s home; that he quoted saying that if she comes to their home, there would be another death; that he used to say that her husband-A.1 had gone to Warangal, which in fact, is false and that he conspired with her husband-A.1 and sent him to USA without her knowledge. It is specifically alleged that the petitioners herein always used to instigate the husband of the complainant to harass her mentally and physically. Prima facie, the allegations levelled in the statement of the complainant amounts to cruelty to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that unless the harassment meted out to the complainant is such a grave to cause mental agony to the complainant, no offence is made out under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, since the complaint allegations do not disclose such mental agony, the impugned proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC as defined in explanation (a) is ‘any willful 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. The acts and words as spoken to by first petitioner that ‘if the complainant visits to her in-laws house, there would be another death’ will definitely cause grave injury and danger to her mental health. Further it is specially alleged in the complaint that the petitioners herein always used to instigate the husband of the complainant to harass her mentally and physically and that they conspired with her husband due to which, he left the complainant alone in India and went away to USA. Further the impugned proceedings are initiated as early as in the year 2003, but the first petitioner, who is a retired police officer, has no respect to law and without appearing before the lower court, moved this Court nearly after three years for quashing the impugned proceedings and stalled the proceedings for the last three years. Ultimately, this Court has vacated the stay granted earlier, by order dated 29.7.2010 for failure on the part of the petitioners to serve notice on the de fact complainant. In view of the above, it is not a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 01, 2010 Tsr.