HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4024 of 2009 DATE: 19.08.2010 Between: Shk. Mohammad Ismail and 8 other …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4024 of 2009 ORDER: 1. Though originally this petition was filed by A-1 to A-9, the petition in so far as A-1/1st petitioner is concerned, was dismissed. Now the petitioners 2 to 9/A-2 to A-9 are pursuing this petition. A-1 is husband of the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent. A-2 is father. A-3 to A-5 are brothers. A-6 and A-7 are sisters of A-1. A-8 and A-9 are husbands of A-6 and A-7 respectively. A-2 is a retired teacher. A-3 to A-9 are also working as teachers. A-6 and A-8 are residents of Prakasham District. The petitioners are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in PRC No. 19 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. It is alleged that 70 tolas of gold jewels, Rs.5,00,000/- in cash were given at the time of marriage of the defacto-complainant. The alleged dowry must have been given to A-1 and A-2 who is father and not to married sisters or younger brothers of A-1. It is not the 2nd respondent’s case that any dowry was given either to younger brothers or married sisters or their husbands, of A-1. 2. In so far as allegations regarding harassment are concerned, they are against A-1 only. A-2 to A-9 are stated to have supported A-1 in harassing the defacto-complainant. After the alleged incident regarding gas leak, the 2nd respondent alleges that Rs.50,000/- was paid to A-1 and the 2nd respondent joined matrimonial life with him thereafter. The 2nd incident of sprinkling kerosene and intending to kill the 2nd respondent was alleged only against A-1 and not against any of A-2 to A-9. Thus, on reading of the entire material placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that all family members of A-1 were roped into this case as a measure of counter harassment of A-1’s family members. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in so far as A-3 to A-9 are concerned are liable to be quashed as they abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.19 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rayachoty in so far as the petitioners 3 to 9/A-3 to A-9 are concerned. The petition is partly dismissed in so far as the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. August 19, 2010 GK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4024 of 2009 Date: 19.08.2010 Gk.