THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3914 of 2008 Date: 08.04.2011 Between: Dubbaka Gangubai and 4 others … Petitioners/ Accused AND The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.3914 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are A.3 to A.7. They are the mother, two brothers and the wives of the two brothers of A.1. The second respondent is the wife of A.1. The petitioners sought for quashing of C.C. No.390 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal against them. Notice was served upon the second respondent. 2. The petitioners 1 to 5 are A.3 to A.7. A.3 is the mother of A.1. A.4 and A.6 are the brothers of A.1. A.5 and A.7 are the wives of A.4 and A.6 respectively. The second respondent laid a complaint against seven accused including the present petitioners alleging that they committed the offences under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) as well as u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A.3 to A.7, however, laid this petition. A.1 and A.2 are not parties to this petition. The claim and the relief consequently are confined to A.3 to A.7 only. 3. It is the case of Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that the second respondent-wife is not interested in living with A.1-husband and wanted to get her marriage with A.1 dissolved through a decree of divorce. He drew my attention to the complaint of the second respondent. In para 7 of the complaint, she herself reported that there was a settlement before elders on 17.06.2004 wherein A.1 agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent and that the second respondent and the first accused should get their marriage dissolved. In paras 8 and 9 of the complaint, the second respondent contended that A.1 went back on the agreement entered into by him with the second respondent and that A.2 to A.7 have secreted A.1 to prevent the second respondent from contacting A.1 and that A.2 to A.7 also are guilty of the offences as much as A.1 is. 4. Assuming that A.2 to A.7 have secreted A.1 to prevent the second respondent from contacting A.1, it is not an offence as against the second respondent. Perhaps, they would be guilty of wrongful restrain so far as A.1 is concerned, if such a secreting was against the wish of A.1. However, so far as the second respondent is concerned, no offence prima facie can be made out against A.2 to A.7 even if they secreted away A.1 so as to prevent the second respondent from having access to A.1. 5. So far as the offences u/s.498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the allegations against A.2 to A.7 are perfunctory, omnibus and sweeping. There is no specific overt act in the complaint against any of the accused amongst A.2 to A.7. The second respondent merely claimed that A.2 to A.7 harassed the second respondent for additional dowry. Nothing more was stated against A.2 to A.7 so far as the offences u/s.498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned. 6. As already pointed out, the allegations are not specific, but are sweeping in nature. I am afraid that unless the second respondent made cogent and concrete allegations against the accused, she cannot expect a reasonable prosecution of the accused before a criminal court. I am afraid that the second respondent prima facie failed to make out a case against A.2 to A.7 for the offences u/s.498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The other offence alleged against the present petitioners and others is u/s.420 IPC. Perhaps, the case of the second respondent is that the first accused has gone back on the agreement at the time of the mediation dated 17.06.2004 and that the petitioners facilitated the first accused to evade the second respondent by secreting him and thus committed the offence u/s.420 IPC. So far as the mediation is concerned, it is not even alleged that all the accused participated in the mediation dated 17.06.2004. The case of the second respondent is that the first accused alone has agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent. If the petitioners were parties to the mediation and had actively agreed with the second respondent at the time of the mediation, perhaps, they would have been guilty of the offence u/s.420 IPC for secreting the first accused. However, it is not the case of the second respondent that the petitioners were parties and participants of the mediation dated 17.06.2004. Consequently, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offence u/s.420 IPC also. 8. Thus, no case is made out against the petitioners 1 to 5 who are A.3 to A.7. Indeed, no offence, in fact, would appear to be made out against A.2 also. However, where A.2 is not a party and is not a petitioner before me, I refrain to go any further into the merits of the case against A.2. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my special attention to the fact that A.6 has been working in the Gulf since about 15 years and the question of A.6 becoming a party for the offences u/s.498-A and 420 IPC and u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would not prima facie arise. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that A.6/fouth petitioner has been a resident in the Gulf for the past 15 years has not been made out. The affidavit given by A.7, who is the wife of A.6, in this regard is of no value where A.7 herself is one of the accused. A copy of the said affidavit would not establish that A.6 has been staying in Gulf. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that A.6 has been residing in the Gulf and could not have been a party to the matrimonial offences against the second respondent. 10. However, it is a mere academic exercise. From the very complaint, no case is made out prima facie against any of the petitioners for the offences u/s.498-A and 420 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Consequently, the case against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal against A.3 to A.7 are hereby quashed. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 08.04.2011 Isn