THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7307 of 2009 Date: 21-03-2011 Between: Chintala Sivaiah Lingam and another … Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7307 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C in C.C.No.453 of 2009 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. A2 and A3 are parents of A1. A1 is not figuring as a petitioner herein. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 is not in dispute. It is alleged that by the date of marriage the 2nd respondent was offered a job by IBM Bank and that the accused did not allow her to join the job and started harassing her mentally and that she was not allowed to go out of the house and was made to stay inside the house and that on 23-09-2007, the 2nd respondent left for Chennai and joined employment and that A1 asked her not to come back and not to join him and that therefore the 2nd respondent resigned for the job and joined company of A1 on 13-02-2008 and that A1 did not touch the 2nd respondent and suspected her as she roamed here and there and went out of the house. In spite of parents of the 2nd respondent approaching A1 and IDWA mahila mandali mediating the dispute, A1 continued his harassment of the 2nd respondent mentally and used to beat her with hands. It is specifically alleged that A3 did not allow the 2nd respondent to lead marital life with A1 and made her to sleep separately and did not allow the 2nd respondent to sleep with A1 and that A2 supported all these harassments. Except this allegation of A3 not allowing the 2nd respondent to sleep with A1 and A2 supporting the same, there is absolutely no other allegation of harassment alleged against the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3. It is contended that even if the said allegations are assumed for the sake of argument, these allegations will not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. Explanation to Section 498 I.P.C, particularly limb (b) thereof, contemplates that harassment must be with a view to coercing the victim or any person related to him to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. There is absolutely no allegation that there was any demand for any property or valuable security or for failure to fulfill the said demand the accused resorted to harassment. The only allegation is that A1 asked her not to go for job. In the absence of any allegation of demand for any property or valuable security much less unlawful demand and the harassment being the result of failure to provide the same and with a view to coerce her to meet the said demand, this Court is of the opinion that Section 498-A I.P.C has no application at all in this case, even if the prosecution allegations are taken on their face value. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.453 of 2009 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/ A2 and A3 are concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 21-03-2011 KSM