HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7789 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 4/ A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant with her late husband Siva Kumar took place in April 2003. They have two children who are daughter, aged 6 years and son, aged 4 years. The 2nd respondent’s husband died on 10.05.2009. It is complaint of the 2nd respondent that after death of her husband, the petitioners who are parents’-in-law and brothers-in-law necked her out of the family house along with two children and that whenever the 2nd respondent went to house of her in- laws, they used to express no place to her in their house. According to the 2nd respondent, the family house is in 400 square yards and it is joint property and rent of Rs.30,000/- per month is being derived from that property. It is further alleged that after marriage, the 2nd respondent’s sister-in-law Tara, her husband Harinath along with A.2, A.4 and A.5 harassed her mentally and physically and beat her, due to which her husband occupied rented house. Even as per allegations in the report and in the charge sheet, the 2nd respondent was living separately with her husband in a rented house during life time of her husband. Therefore, the question of necking her out of the family house after death of her husband, will not arise at all. It is only a property dispute between the 2nd respondent and her in-laws for share in the house property as well as in the rents. The said dispute has to be resolved between the parties in appropriate civil forum and not by resorting to a criminal case. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the required ingredients/statutory facts under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out. There is no allegation of demand for any additional dowry or presents. Such question will never arise after death of the 2nd respondent’s husband. It is evident that this criminal case is filed to arm twist the in-laws for some settlement with the 2nd respondent and it is nothing but abuse of process of criminal law. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that after filing of these petitions, the 1st petitioner/A.1 died. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.435 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 16th November, 2011. PNV