THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.Nos.8301/08 & 7367/09 COMMON ORDER: In both these criminal petitions, common questions of law and fact arises for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. Crl.P.No.8301 of 2008 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.448 of 2008 on the file of Vijayawada Law and Order Police Station on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Crl.P.No.7367 of 2009 is filed seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada filed for passing protection orders, for arresting the respondents therein and to pay necessary compensation under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The first petitioner in Crl.P.No.8301/08 and the sole petitioner in Crl.P.No.7367/09 and respondent-complainant in both the criminal petitions are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively. The petitioners 2 to 4 (close relatives of the first petitioner) in Crl.P.No.8301 of 2008 are A3 to A5 in Cr.No.448 of 2008 of Vijayawada (L&O) P.S. registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The complainant filed report alleging that her marriage with A1 was performed at Sri Annavaram Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam on 25.5.2005 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.3,00,000/- to A1 towards dowry apart from giving 10 tolas gold and both lived happily for sometime and thereafter her husband (A1 in Cr.No.448 of 2008) used to harass her for bringing additional dowry at the instigation of A2 to A5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that only bald allegations are made against A2 to A5 and no specific allegations are made against them and a false case was foisted against them for various reasons and even supposing that there is some prima facie case against A1, no case is made out against A2 to A5, who never lived in a shared house along with complainant as laid down in Section 2(f) and 2(q) of the Act, which is a condition precedent to constitute such offence. Therefore, absolutely there is no basis to say that all of them lived together in a shared house. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Having heard both parties and perused the record, I am of the view that only bald allegations are made against A2 to A5 in the matter and no useful purpose would be served by conducting the investigation of the case against them. Prima facie, it appears that only for the purpose of the harassment A2 to A5 were implicated in the case. I n KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1], the Supreme Court held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry and in cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and by mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths and a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all the relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths, which if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits and in their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. In view of the same, the proceedings in Cr.No.448 of 2008 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A insofar as A2 to A5 are concerned, they are liable to be quashed. Insofar as proceedings in D.V.C.No.55 of 2009 is concerned, in view of Sections 2(f) and 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, the complainant and her mother-in-law should have resided along with A2 to A5 in a shared house. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant and her mother-in-law never lived together. Therefore, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.55 of 2009 are also liable to be quashed. In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.448 of 2008 of Vijayawada (L&O) Police Station and also the proceedings in D.V.C.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 9-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.Nos.8301/08 & 7367/09 9.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.Nos.8301/08 & 7367/09 Date: 9.12.2011 Between: Jonnalagadda Mahalakshmamma & others. .. Petitioners/Accused And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents [1] AIR 2000 SC 2324