THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1371, 5030 and 5105 of 2009 Dated : 02.11.2009 CRL.P.No.1371 of 2009 Between : Smt.Pappa Laxmi & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents CRL.P.No.5030 of 2009 Between : B.Raghunath ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents CRL.P.No.5105 of 2009 Between : W.Kalyani ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1371, 5030 and 5105 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : Since all these three petitions arise out of same C.C., they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.1371 of 2009 are A.5 and A.6, petitioner in Crl.P.No.5030 of 2009 is A.9 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5105 of 2009 is A.8 in C.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, arising out of crime No.80 of 2008 of Ainavilli Police Station. Charge sheet reveals that A.1 is the husband, A.2 is the mother- in-law, A.3 is the younger brother-in-law of the defacto complainant respectively. A.5 and A.6 are the relatives of A.1, who actively participated in the marriage of the complainant with A.1. A.7 is the maternal uncle of A.1, A.8 is the person, who is said to be having illegal intimacy with A.1 and on account of whom A.1 is not taking proper care of the complainant. Further, A.9 is the friend of A.1, who harassed the complainant along with A.1. According to the complaint, her marriage with A.1 took place on the intervening night of 3/4-02-2007. At the time of marriage, A.1 promised that he would not ask for any dowry as he was working as a Software Engineer in U.S.A. and as the complainant, who completed M.Phil, can easily get a job. Later, A.2 with connivance of A.1 took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery as dowry. After the marriage, A.1 took the complainant to Visakhapatnam where A.3 to A.7 also resided in the same house. A.7 and A.9, who acted as advisers to A.1 and A.2 since the marriage, used to visit the house of A.1 frequently and on their provocation A.1 to A.7 started harassing the complainant stating that dowry and ornaments given by her parents are low and they would have got higher amount as dowry if A.1 married another girl in view of the status of A.1. Thereafter, A.1 took the complainant to Florida in U.S.A. where also she was physically and mentally harassed and when they came to India also the harassment continued. Now, all these criminal petitions are filed by respective petitioners contending that there are no specific allegations against them, and as such, proceedings against them may be quashed. Now the point for consideration is “whether there are any grounds for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners?” As far as petitioners in Crl.P.No.1371 of 2009 i.e. A.5 and A.6 in the case are concerned, admittedly they are not the relatives of the husband of the defacto complainant. According to her, they are the persons, who actively participated in the marriage process, and they are responsible for settlement of her marriage with A.1. The statement of the complainant recorded by Police would not reveal anything serious against them. In her statement, she has stated that these two petitioners, who are the close relatives of her husband, along with other accused have demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/-. Except such allegation, there is no other allegation against these petitioners in the statement of the complainant. Further, in the statements of the father and grand father of the complainant also there are absolutely no allegations against these petitioners except saying that these petitioners have also joined other accused in harassing the defacto complainant. Thus, it can be said that there is absolutely no substantial material against these petitioners to proceed against them. Coming to the case against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5105 of 2009, the allegation leveled against her is that she is having illegal intimacy with A.1 and that while they were in Tirupathi, she was occupying the room along with A.1 and that she was closely moving with A.1 as if she was the wife of A.1. Certain photographs are also filed before this Court to show that she is closely moving with A.1. However, it cannot be said that those photographs would automatically lead to a presumption that she was having intimacy with A.1, but, it can be said that there is prima facie case against this petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5030 of 2009 are that he is the friend of A.1 and he along with A.1 has harassed the complainant physically and mentally. According to her, A.1 and this petitioner forcibly took her signatures on some documents for divorce and that later both of them have taken her to Madhapur Police Station saying that Police called her and that she has become lunatic and in fact, they have dragged her to Madhapur Police Station wherein the Police reprimanded A.1. First of all, this petitioner is not the relative of A.1 and secondly there is no sufficient material on record to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC against him. Considering the above said circumstances, Crl.P.Nos.1371 of 2009 and 5030 of 2009 are allowed and Crl.P.No.5105 of 2009 is dismissed. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 2nd November, 2009 SUR