IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3449 of 2008 DATE:23.07.2010 Between: Arshad Sayeed and others. …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3449 of 2008 ORDER : This is a wholesale implication of all the family members including married sisters who are residing with their respective husbands in different localities. The 1st respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1. A-2 is mother, A-3 to A-7 are married sisters, A-8 and A-9 are brothers of A-1. A-9 is residing separately and he is elder to A-1. It is stated that the 2nd respondent gave report to the police after she was divorced by A-1. Divorce if any will not absolve the parties from criminal liability for the acts which occurred prior to the divorce. 2) It is alleged that A-1 was returning to the house in drunken state and was asking the defacto-complainant also to drink with him and that when she refused to drink, A-1 used to beat her and that the accused used to treat her as a maid-servant and that mother and sisters of A-1 used to insult her as if she came from beggar’s family. Ultimately it is allegation of the defacto- complainant that demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, she was necked out of the family house on 22.01.2007 by all the accused. The petitioners’ counsel filed Photostat copies of some papers which are stated to be medical record issued by the Government Maternity Hospital, Hyderabad and contended that from 19.01.2007 to 25.01.2007 the petitioner was hospitalised. There is correction in the date of admission as well as date of discharge. It is evident to the naked eye that the defacto-complainant was in hospital from 09.01.2007 to 15.01.2007 and it was interpolated. In any event, this Court cannot consider defence of the petitioners in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3) This Court cannot accept allegation of the 2nd respondent to the affect that all the accused conjointly demanded for Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and necked her out of the family house. At best, such attribution can be made against the persons who are residing in the family house and not against elder brothers and married sisters who are living elsewhere. In so far as the accusation against A-3 to A-7 and A-9 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that they were unnecessarily impleaded in a routine manner by making omnibus allegation. This is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4) In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.949 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioners 3 to 7 and 9/A-3 to A-7 and A-9 are concerned. The petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1, 2 and 8/A-1, A-2 and A-8 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 KSH