IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 8558 of 2009 Between: 1 Smt. Akther Begum, S/o. Late Syed Basheer Ahmed, R/o. H.No. 6-2-881/1, Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda. 2 Syed Mateen Ahmed, S/o. Late Syed Basheer Ahmed, R/o. H.No. 6-2-881/1, Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda. 3 Syed Jamal Ahmed, S/o. Late Syed Basheer Ahmed, R/o. H.No. 6-2-881/1, Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Stm. Tahmeena Masood, SD/o. Md. Masood Ali Siddique, R/o. H.NO. 17-2-1198/63/1, Waheed Colony, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the FIR No. 386 of 2009 on the file of the Police Station CCS., Hyderabad The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 8558 of 2009 O r d e r: This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 and 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioners are the mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the de facto complainant. As per the complaint – the marriage of the de facto complainant was performed the with A-1, the son of the first petitioner on 9-11-2007; substantial dowry was given in the shape of cash and gold; after the marriage she was treated well only for two days; thereafter at the instigation of the mother-in-law (1st petitioner), brothers-in-law (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) and her husband started abusing and torturing her physically and mentally. Her husband asked her to get Rs.5.00 Lakhs as additional dowry to enable him to go to USA; that was paid and on 10—02—2008 her husband beat and necked her out from the house asking her to get five more lakhs of rupees on the pretext that he requires that money for flight ticket and other expenses for going to USA; her parents arranged even that amount. Her husband left for USA on 19-01-2008. At the time of marriage, she was working as a Lecturer in an engineering college; but her husband before leaving for USA forced her to resign that job. After going to USA, her husband sponsored one Ms. Lakshmi for VISA stating that she is his wife – thus he cheated her. All the petitioners tortured her at the instance of the husband. Even her husband took away all her certificates to USA by making her helpless etc. 3. Thus, there are serious allegations against husband – of cheating her by suppressing the fact of his contacting marriage with another lady; of extracting substantial monies etc. The allegations against the present petitioners are not that specific; but of harassing her at the instance of her husband. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being brothers-in-law, presumably, might not be responsible. However, as already stated the allegations against them are also not specific and omnibus in nature. As far as the first petitioner (mother-in-law) is concerned, no doubt, her case is somewhat similar to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. But, she being mother-in-law, she might have taken active part in harassing her and she must definitely be knowing the other activities of her son, the husband of the de facto complainant. As such it is not a fit case for granting any relief to her. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is suffering from Cancer and for that she may be granted relief. I am not inclined to grant any relief, even basing on the fact that she is suffering from Cancer, in view of the nature of torture and harassment the complainant was subjected to. 5. In the result, the petition is disposed of directing the investigating agency to go ahead with the investigation and to take consequential steps basing on the result of the investigation. It is further directed that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not be arrested till filing of the charge sheet if any. The petition of the first petitioner stands dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Dated:22-10-2009 *BVS