HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4434 of 2009 Date: September 30, 2010 Between: Smt. S. Gyana Sree. … Petitioner/ Accused No.8 And 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents/ Complainant * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4434 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A-8 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 506, 494/109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.98 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda, Krishna District, along with seven others. 2. Relationship of A-8 with A-1 who is husband of the third respondent/de facto complainant and details of all participants in the offences are not disclosed in the charge sheet. Complicity of A-8 in this case can be gathered if statement of the second respondent recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. is read. A-8 is described as daughter of paternal aunt of the third respondent. In the entire statement of the second respondent, she did not state as to how A-8 is related to her through A-1. Section 498 (A) IPC is applicable if the harassment by way of cruelty is committed by husband or any relative of the husband. In the absence of pointing out relationship for A-8 with A-1, it cannot be said that A-8 is liable for prosecution for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. 3. Be that as it may, it is alleged by the second respondent in her statement to the police that with an intention to wreck vengeance against her, A-8 developed acquaintance with A-1 and was asking A-1 to send his wife away or to demand money from her father who retired from service. It is further alleged that A-8 was proclaiming that she would see that A-1 goes for another marriage and was threatening the third respondent with miserable life to her. It is further alleged that A-1 married A-7 as his second wife and that A-8 phoned up to her and informed her that she introduced A-7 to A-1. But, even from the same statement of the third respondent to the police, it is evident that A-1 was talking to A-7 by phone for hours together and that since some time past, A-7 was moving closely with A-1 and that A-7 also attended marriage of the third respondent with A-1 and also accompanied them to Tirupati after marriage. 4. From those statements, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the question of A-8 introducing A-7 for the first time to A-1 will not arise at all. On the above contents of statements of the second respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out any offences either under Section 498 (A) IPC or under Section 494/109 IPC against A-8 in this case even if those allegations are taken on their face value. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing C.C. No.98 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda in so far as the petitioner/A-8 is concerned. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: September 30, 2010. BSB