THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5753 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 approach this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.250 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, Guntur District, wherein they are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Previously, the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant lodged a complaint against her husband, parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law before the Ponnur Town police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.73 of 2008. Subsequently, the police filed the charge sheet against the defacto-complainant’s husband only and dropped further action against her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Aggrieved thereby, the defacto-complainant filed the present private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Ponnur, and the same was referred to the concerned police. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and numbered as C.C.No.250 of 2008. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioners herein, more particularly, the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not attract. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that this is a matter to be decided by the trial Court. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant. According to the defacto-complainant, the allegations mentioned by her in the complaint filed by her before the concerned Court attract the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For better appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the private complaint filed by the defacto-complainant is reproduced hereunder: “D. As the father of the complainant is a petty kirana merchant and as such he is unable to fulfill the demand of the accused. Due to the ill-treatment of A1 and his family members i.e., A2 to A5, complainant used to stay at her parent house in Ponnur and after having pacified the matter and after the intervention of the elders of the complainant used to return to her matrimonial house in Karlapalem. E. Complainant as no other alternative reported the matter to Karlapalem police and the police conducted counseling and made a compromise between the complainant and the accused. As per the counseling terms and as per the direction of Karlapalem police A2 and A3 were shifted to Hyderabad for separate living. Since then A1 to A5 bore grudge against the complainant. A2 to A5 encouraged A1 through regular phone calls, to teach a lesson to the complainant by not providing proper food, necessities and other home needs. A2 to A5 further encouraged the A1 to obtain divorce from the complainant at any cost with a view to carry another rich and white coloured skin girl. Accordingly A1 danced to the tunes of his family members i.e., A2 to A5.” Mere reading of the aforesaid contents of the complaint disclose that except the complainant alleging that the petitioners encouraged Accused No.1 to obtain divorce from the complainant at any cost with a view to marry another girl and that they demanded her to bring additional dowry, no specific overt acts are mentioned against the petitioners. Further, the particulars with regard to the manner of the instigation of the petitioners, the date of instigation, type of instigation and the act of the main accused are totally not mentioned in the complaint. Further, concerning the earlier complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant before the concerned police, the police, after investigation, dropped further action against the petitioners herein. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and after going through the contents of the private complaint filed by the defacto- complainant, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.250 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, Guntur District, amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners alone in the said C.C.No.250 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, Guntur District, are hereby quashed. In any event, the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial in C.C.No.250 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, Guntur District, insofar as the other accused are concerned. With the above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.03.2011 v v