HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Baskara Reddy, leaned counsel for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. 2. The accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in C.C.No.53 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in the said case sofar as they are concerned. All the three petitioners are ladies. The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. All the three petitioners are said to be sisters of A.1 Ch. Venugopl, who is the husband of the defacto-complainant. It is represented today that the first petitioner K. Aparna died during the pedency of this petition and hence the criminal case against her stands abated. Sri Baskra Reddy pointed out that the 2nd petitioner Kalyani’s marriage took place long prior to the marriage of A.1 with the defacto-complinant and she has been residing with her husband at Kadapa and she has nothing to do with the family life of A.1 and the defacto-complainant who were at Hyderabad. The third petitioner is still an un-married girl staying with her parents. He further pointed out that a perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that the defacto-complainant has conveniently made only general allegations against the three petitioners who are the sisters of her husband. 4. He brought to my notice the statement of the defacto-complainant which is said to have been recorded on 2.1.2008 in Owayasi hospital at Hydeabad, at about 12.50 p.m. It shows that on the morning of 2.1.2008, the defacto-complainant vexed with the attitude of her husband in not going and talking to her parents, she consumed some broken pieces of glass bangles on her own and that she was taken to the hospital by her mother-in-law. This statement also does not contain any thing against the petitioners. 5. A perusal of the FIR would also indicate that the defacto- complainant’s husband suspected her fidelity by repeatedly telling the defacto-complainant that he was not the author of the pregnancy which she conceived before the date of lodging the FIR and the three petitioners herein took advantage of the same and harassed the defacto-complainant her. In what manner exactly they have harassed is not made clear in the FIR. It may also be noted that the defacto- complainant did not allege any grievance against her mother-in-law. The allegations made against all the three petitioners are very general in nature and the charge sheet also does not clearly specify as to how all the three petitioners committed the offence under Section 498-A against the 2nd respondent and it is not also clear as to the dowry demand that was made by them. In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the 1st petitioner already died, I am of the opinion that the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 have to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3. 6. It is however, made clear that during the course of trial, if it is found that the petitioners 2 and 3 have also committed any offences that are alleged in the charge sheet along with the 1st accused, it shall be open for the trial court to proceed against them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J Date:17.11.2011. Gk HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 of 2008 Date: 17.11.2011. Gk.