THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1500 of 2011 Between: D.Venkat Rao …..Petitioner And Kandi Suryanarayana and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1500 of 2011 ORDER: The five petitioners herein are A-2 to A-6 in C.C.No.858 of 2010 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (trial Court). They have been, along with A-1, charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 109 IPC and also Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), the petitioners are seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings against them in the above case. The de facto complainant is one Dr.T.Shasikala and she is the wife of A-1 in the case. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (A-2 and A-3) are parents and the petitioner No.3 (A-4) is sister of A-1. Petitioner No.5 is said to be an advocate of Tirupathi and the petitioner No.4 is his wife. This petition was admitted and an interim stay of proceedings was granted earlier. Later on the respondent No.1 herein i.e. the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.3624 of 2011 for vacating the stay. Both the counsel and also the Public Prosecutor were heard and the main petition has been taken up for disposal. 3. So far as petitioners Nos.1 and 2 who are admittedly the parents of the A-1 are concerned, the allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offences mentioned in the charge sheet against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the allegations in the charge sheet and he argued that they do not disclose any offences against them, but as already mentioned supra, it is stated in the chare sheet that these two petitioners also, along with A-1, harassed her and subjected her to cruelty for properties and also they took dowry putting forth a demand for it. The learned counsel for petitioners raised several pleas regarding petitioner Nos.1 and 2, but those pleas fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and hence cannot be gone into in these petition. One plea which was raised was that earlier the de facto complainant came forward for a settlement and approached the Legal Services Authorities at Hyderabad, but those talks failed and the case is a false one. May be the de facto complainant has approached the Legal Services Authority, but it is the version of the petitioners themselves that the said talks failed, but that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the case against them as allegations in the charge sheet do disclose offences against them. Accordingly, their case for quashing the proceedings is rejected. 4. That takes me to the plea of the petitioner No.3, who is A-4 and who is the sister of A-1 and the daughter of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In the charge sheet, she is described as a married lady and she is said to be living with her husband in Nagpur of Maharashtra State. Then coming to the complicity of this petitioner, it is mentioned that at the time of marriage, the de facto complainant’s father presented 5 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.25,000/- to this petitioner. It is then stated that all the accused including this petitioner also harassed the de facto complainant and also her father to transfer the properties in the name of A-1. The charge sheet is not clear to show that the gold and the cash given to this petitioner were demanded by her and therefore it can be said that they might have been presented to her in the usual course as she happens to be the sister of A-1 in accordance with the customs. 5. It may then be noted that there are no clear cut allegations in the charge sheet that this petitioner also demanded the transfer of properties in the name of A-1 and if so how she stands to gain from the said properties. So is the case even against petitioner Nos.4 and 5 (A-5 and A-6). The allegations against them are that they, along with A-4 i.e. the petitioner No.3, used to visit the house of de facto complainant and A-1 at Suryapet and instigate A-1 to demand additional dowry and properties. It should be noted that the petitioner No.5 is described as an Advocate of Tirupathi and petitioner No.4 who is his wife is described as Teacher in Tirupathi of Chittoor District. It is not made clear in the charge sheet as to why the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 should instigate A-1 to get properties from the father of the de facto complainant and, even if he gets it, how they stand to gain from such properties and whether they can get any share in the said properties. As already noted supra, the petitioner No.3 is a married lady and is shown as living with her husband at Nagpur. 6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant pointed out that earlier petitioner Nos.3 to 5 filed Criminal Petition No.4382 of 2009 for quashing the case when it was at the stage of FIR pending investigation and this Court dismissed that petition on 26.8.2010 holding that there were no grounds to quash the FIR against them and consequently the same position holds good even now. There is no force in this contention. It is true that the order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4382 of 2009 shows that the FIR allegations disclose offences against these petitioners also and the matter was pending investigation and therefore it was not a fit case for quashing the FIR. The said order was passed when the case was at the stage of FIR and it was quashed on the ground that when allegations are shown in the FIR, the matter needs to be investigated. That cannot help the de facto complainant. 7. What should be noted is that the charge sheet now is filed on the same allegations that petitioner Nos.3 to 6 harassed the de facto complainant and instigated A-1 to demand transfer of properties in his name. As already mentioned supra, it is not clear as to how the petitioner Nos.3 to 6 would stand to gain if A-1 gets the properties from his parents-in-law. In my opinion, this case would squarely fall within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in PREETI GUPTA vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[1] wherein the Supreme Court interfered and quashed the case against the married sister and brother of the husband of the de facto complainant on the ground that they were living away from the de facto complainant and her husband. The same principle applies in the circumstances of this case to petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein. 8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed in so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (i.e. A-2 and A-3) are concerned and it is allowed in so far as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 (i.e. A-4 to A-6) are concerned and the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 in the said case are quashed. It is however made clear that this order shall not be understood to come in the way of trial Court to proceed against them also as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C or any other provision of law which permits such a course, if such a necessity arises. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 29th June 2011 Tjmr/CVRK [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667