THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6388 OF 2009 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Chenna Reddy and others …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6388 OF 2009 ORDER This petition has been filed to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.396 of 2009, dated 30.7.2009, on the file of the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She is the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner. The other petitioners are close relatives of her husband. The specific case of the second respondent is as follows: Marriage of the second respondent with one C.Gourishankar Reddy was solemnized on 30.4.2008. At the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.3,00,000/- and 20 tulas of gold towards dowry and Rs.40,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam. It is her case that an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was given to her father-in-law for keeping the said amount in fixed deposit in her name, but he utilised the said amount for his personal use and cheated her. It is also alleged that her sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and that they abused and beat her and threatened to pour kerosene on her and also threatened to perform second marriage to her husband. It is also alleged that when she was pregnant, they pushed her from first floor and that she became serious and that her parents provided treatment to her and that they were trying to kill her and treating her as a servant. It is also alleged that her husband is looking after her health and basing on the same, the police registered above said crime. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the complaint lodged by the first petitioner i.e. the father-in-law of the second respondent, which reveals as follows: His son i.e. C.Gourishankar Reddy was not having any job and therefore he had mobilised an amount of Rs.3 lakhs which includes an amount of Rs.1 lakh kept for the proposed marriage of his fourth daughter and that his second and third sons each gave him Rs.1 lakh to C.Gourishankar Reddy and then the marriage of C.Gourishankar Reddy was performed and when he requested C.Gourishankar Reddy to return Rs.1 lakh kept for the marriage of his fourth daughter and other Rs.2 lakhs given by his other sons, C.Gourishankar Reddy and his wife i.e. second respondent herein started troubling him and his sons by giving false complaint. 4. The complaint dated 30.6.2007 reveals that the second respondent left the house of the first petitioner about two months prior to filing of said complaint. So it appears that in the last week of April, according to the first petitioner, the second respondent left his house. He has also narrated how his son C.Gourishankar Reddy and daughter-in-law i.e. the second respondent herein threatened him to implead him and his daughters in a false case and then he lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada on 3.7.2009. It appears that another complaint was lodged against the 1st petitioner by one P.Venkayamma on 4.7.2009 for the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. The complaint would show that she tried to mediate the dispute between the first petitioner and his son, the first petitioner abused her in the name of her caste. Later, the first petitioner filed writ petition No.13534 of 2009 alleging that the police officials are not taking action on the complaint given by him against his son and daughter-in-law. 4. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that all the allegations made by the second respondent are omnibus allegations and no specific allegations are made against anyone of the petitioner i.e. date, time and other particulars have not been given. As far as the allegation made against the first petitioner that he retained an amount of Rs.3 lakhs is concerned, the record reveals that the first petitioner himself had approached the authorities and narrated how his son and daughter-in-law harassed him. Where, in a case, it appears that false complaint has been lodged only to harass their opponents and continuation of criminal proceedings would result in abuse of process of law, such proceedings have to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No.396 of 2009, dated 30.7.2009, on the file of the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District is hereby quashed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 20th October, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6388 OF 2009 DATE: 20.10.2011