HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3360 of 2011 ORDER:- The petitioners herein are A.2 to A.7 in C.C.No.446 of 2010 which is a police case on the file of the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad (trial Court). They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the said case. The offences alleged in the said case are those punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 1st respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the said case and the above case was filed on a Court referred complaint preferred by her. 2. The 1st respondent is the wife of A.1-Lingala Maheshwar Rao. Their marriage admittedly took place on 28.08.2008 at Medchal. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the parents-in-law of the 1st respondent. The 3rd petitioner is brother of A.1 and the 5th petitioner is wife of the 3rd petitioner. The 4th petitioner-E.Anitha is sister of A.1, while the 6th petitioner is said to be the mediator who arranged the marriage. 3. The 1st respondent’s case is that soon-after the marriage she joined her husband and they along with petitioners 1 to 5 lived jointly and all of them harassed her both mentally and physically for additional dowry and other properties on the ground that she was black in complexion and not suitable for A.1 and that they would have got more dowry if A.1 had married another lady. It is stated by her that she kept quiet with a fond hope that good sense will ultimately prevail with all accused but the harassment continued even after the birth of a child to her. She also gave details to show as to how all accused harassed her and ill treated her even during her pregnancy. She further alleged that even the 6th petitioner who is the mediator brought second marriage proposals to A.1 and joined all accused to enable them to get rid of her and perform a second marriage to A.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the allegations made against all the petitioners are general in nature and do not show any offence against them and that police have charge sheeted all the petitioners merely by reproducing the allegations in the complaint and therefore the case should be quashed. He specifically argued that so far as petitioners 3 to 6 are concerned they have nothing to do with the family life of the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent and have been unnecessarily dragged into the matter and that the 6th petitioner who is a mediator has been charge sheeted without any basis. He also relied upon the decision of our Supreme Court given in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand[1] and contended that basing on the propositions laid down in the said decision the case against all the petitioners should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the charge sheet allegations would show offences mentioned in it against these petitioners also and therefore there is no ground to quash the case and the trial Court should be allowed to go on with it. They also distinguished the above referred to Preeti Gupta’s case and argued that the said case is distinguishable and not applicable here. 6. The point is whether there are grounds to quash the above criminal case against the petitioners. 7. So far as the 4th and 5th petitioners are concerned, they are the sister-in-law and co-sister of the 1st respondent. The 4th petitioner is a married lady and she is stated to be living with her husband away from the 1st respondent and her husband. The position of the 5th petitioner in the household of A.1 can be said to be similar to that of the 1st respondent. It is not made clear in the charge sheet as to how both of them would stand to gain if the 1st respondent brings additional dowry or property and whether they would have any share in it. It should be noted that even if the 1st respondent brings additional dowry or property they cannot be said to have any share in it. Similarly both of them cannot also be said to gain anything from the second marriage of the 1st accused. Even assuming for a moment that the 1st respondent lived in the joint family, the 5th petitioner who is her co-sister cannot be said to have gained anything from the harassment and normally one cannot expect a co-sister to harass another co-sister for money or dowry. The charge sheet allegations are not clear on this aspect. 8. Then coming to the case of the 6th petitioner who is the 7th accused, he is not a relative of 1st respondent’s husband and he is only said to be a marriage mediator who brought about the alliance originally of the 1st respondent and the A.1. The allegation against him is that he abetted A.1 and his parents in harassing the 1st respondent. It is not made clear in the charge sheet as to how he would stand to gain from that harassment. One allegation is that he brought a second marriage proposal for A.1. It is not made clear in the charge sheet as to who is that girl for that second marriage and further how he would stand to gain if the marriage of 1st respondent is broken and also if she brings additional dowry. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the case against 4th, 5th and 6th petitioners should be quashed. 9. In Preeti Gupta’s case referred to supra, it has been held that Section 498-A IPC is being misused and usually all the relatives of the husband are dragged into the case and the Supreme Court went on to administer caution also for police, lawyers and courts. In the said decision on the fact situation therein the Supreme Court quashed the case/F.I.R against a married sister and the brother of the complainant’s husband on the ground that they were living away and prima facie there was nothing to indicate their complicity. The said principle supports the contention of petitioners 4 to 6 herein and therefore their contention that the case should be quashed against them is upheld. 10. Then coming to petitioners 1 & 2, they are the parents-in- law of the 1st respondent and the 3rd petitioner is the brother of her husband. There are allegations against them in the charge sheet and also the statement of the de facto complainant that they subjected her to harassment for additional dowry and property when she lived in the joint household. It may be noted that these petitioners may also not have any share in the dowry or property which may be brought in by the 1st respondent, but they are close relatives of the first accused and it is quite possible that they have supported A.1 in his attitude towards his wife. The allegations in the charge sheet and the de facto complainant’s statement would disclose offences mentioned in it against them also by way of abetment but the case has to be finally decided by the trial court. Having regard to their close relationship with A.1 and the allegations made against them it is difficult to quash the case against them. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised various contentions relating to the attitude of the 1st respondent as against these petitioners 1 to 3 and that they were at the receiving end in order to show that the fault lay with the 1st respondent. However these are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a quash petition and they have to be decided on evidence or if permissible in an enquiry before framing of charges. Hence the case of petitioners 1 to 3 for quashing the case against them cannot be accepted. 12. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the case against petitioners 4 to 6 is quashed and insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, it is dismissed and this petition is partly allowed. It is however made clear that this order shall not be understood to preclude the trial Court from proceeding against petitioners 4 to 6 under Section 319 Cr.P.C if that is warranted. 13. At the end of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in case if the petition is dismissed the presence of the petitioners for every date of hearing before the trial Court may be dispensed with as petitioners 2, 4 and 5 are ladies, the 1st petitioner is an aged person and the other two are employees. It may be noted that this petition has been allowed so far as petitioners 4 to 6 are concerned. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, she is a lady and therefore her presence before the trial Court for every date of hearing is dispensed with and she can be represented by a counsel but this relief is rejected for petitioners 1 and 3. It shall also be open for petitioners 1 to 3 to make an application for discharge if they are advised to do so before the trial Court and the trial Court may dispose of the same without being influenced in any manner by this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 19th July, 2011 Vjl/CVRK [1] 2010 Crl.L.J.4303