THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.260 of 2009 28th September, 2011 Between :- Saikishan Pallod .. Petitioner And Smt.Sarita Loya and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.260 of 2009 ORDER:- This petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by A.6 in Crime No.15 of 2009 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, to quash the proceeding therein. Smt.Sarita Loya/respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, on 12-1- 2009 alleging, inter alia, that she has been harassed by her husband and relatives of her husband on the ground of additional dowry. Various instances of harassment have been stated in her report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.15 of 2009 under Section 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered. Hence, this petition by Srikishan Pallod, who has been arrayed as A.6 in Crime No.15 of 2009 seeking the relief stated supra. Notice to the 1st respondent – de-facto complainant came to be ordered on 23-1-2009. The 1st respondent entered appearance through a Counsel. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for R.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way concerned with the marital life of the de-facto complainant with her husband and except the fact that the petitioner happened to be the maternal uncle of A.1, the petitioner has no occasion to interfere with the marital life of the de-facto complainant with her husband, who has been arrayed as A.1 and therefore continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.15 of 2009 amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent has made specific allegations against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A.6, in the report presented by her before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.15 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have gone through the report presented by the 1st respondent before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. The relevant portion of the report needs to be noted and it is thus:- “The harassment continued day by day and it became worse, my husband started beating me and threatened me that they will give poison to me and kill me, further my father-in-law, mother-in-law used to abuse me every time and my husband’s younger brother used to join with them stating that they will give some unknown poison and kill me and then they will get all the properties which were in my name and whatever amount was lying in my personal account as my legal heirs. It was continued up to September, 2008. Again on 15th September all the above said persons along with my husband’s sister by name Preethi Jawar who resides at H.No.14-11-900, Shree Pitra Kripa, Nayi Basthi, Shahinayatgunj, Hyderabad, came to my in-law’s place for delivery Rajesh Jawar for which he said that he will not want to involve in the family affairs of his in-laws. Sri Kishan Pallod who is the brother of my mother-in-law used to come regularly tomy in-laws house he also threatened me and asked to fulfill the demands made by my in-laws and asked my father-in-law to take my cell phone on which my father-in-law took my phone and not allowing me to inform anything to my parents and they did not allow me to attend the telephone calls from my parents. During Dassera festival I visited my parents house as I was ill and informed everything to my mother on which my parents called my husband and enquired about their behaviour with me, for which my husband stated that from this day there will not be any harassment and that he will look after me and assured me on behalf of all his family members. Believing the same the next day my brother Vinodh Bung took me at my in-laws place and provided me with a new cell phone and a new number. After reaching the in-laws place, there was no change as assured by my husband nor his parents or his younger brother and my sister in-law who were repeating the same thing by harassing me for their needs.” A reading of the report filed by the 1st respondent shows that specific accusations have been made against the petitioner. Therefore this is not a fit case to interdict with the investigation in Crime No.15 of 2009 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to it, interim stay granted on 23-1-2009 stands vacated. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 28th September, 2011 smr