THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6066 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.613 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district registered for offences punishable under Section 498 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are A1 to A11 and the first respondent is the defacto-complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the calendar case. Before going into merits of the case, it is necessary to note the brief facts of the prosecution case as follows: The defacto complainant married A1 on 18.8.2006 at Ramalayam, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. At that time, the parents of the defacto-complainant gave some cash and gifts (it is not referred to whom they were given) and spent almost Rs.20.00 lakhs (necessary details are not given). At that time, a false representation was made to the effect that A1 was working as Doctor in NIMS, Hyderabad, whereas the defacto complainant has been a scientist working in CCMB, Hyderabad. A1 stayed with the defacto complainant for 2½ months after the marriage and then she came to know that he was a drug addict and he got sexual relationship with other ladies and due to those bad habits, he incurred lot of loans. From the date of marriage, A1 and his parents i.e. A2 and A3 started demanding the defacto complainant to bring more money as dowry and also started harassing her to hand over her entire salary of Rs.30,000/- and savings by the first of every month. Apart from that, A1 to A3 forced her parents also to send Rs.5,000/- every month. Further, A1 also forced her to clear his debts. On 25.9.2006, A1 called his parents and abused the defacto complainant and slapped her, then her parents and uncle intervened and rescued her. Further, it is alleged that all the accused demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs towards surety for the construction of house at Chirala and also to clear the loans of A1, which she refused. Further on 2.11.2006 at 10.00 a.m. A1 severely bet the defacto complainant and left the house without intimating her on the instructions of his parents. However, A1 called her by phone from Chirala and demanded again to clear his loans of RS.3.00 to 4.00 lakhs. Further, A2, A3 and uncle of A1 (Vasu-A7) who is a railway employee threatened the defacto complainant that they were going to perform second marriage of the first of them for a dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs. Further, mediations were conducted for settling the issue, without any use. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners-accused that there was a delay of two years in filing the complaint before the concerned Court and no explanation is given as to why such delay was caused for doing so and further no specific allegations are made against any of the accused with regard to the alleged offences and in fact only bald allegations are made against them and the prosecution case does not disclose as to in what way A4 to A6 and A8 to A11 involved in harassing the defacto complainant and further, A9, A10 and A11 got no relationship with the other accused and because they were cited as witnesses in the other case, they were planted in this case accordingly. A1 is the son and A5, A6 and A7 are the daughters of A2 and A3, A4 is the second wife of A2 and A8 is another son of A2 and A3 and A12 happened to be their servant maid. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the second respondent-defacto complainant that there are specific overt-acts against the petitioners-accused and hence, there are no grounds to allow the petition. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings in the calendar case. I have gone through the record. It is emphatical that there are no specific overt-acts of harassment of the defacto complainant by all the accused, and only bald allegations of harassment are made against them. It is also surprising that there is nothing specified against A4 to A6, A8, A9 and A11 with regard to the alleged offences, whereas the allegations made against A7 and A10 are also very bald in nature. Further, it is quite surprising that there was a delay of two years in filing the complaint before it was forwarded to the concerned police for necessary investigation and report, about which no explanation is given. In my opinion, even supposing that the case is tried, no useful purpose would be served. It appears, in view of the circumstances enumerated that only as a device of harassment the complaint was filed against the accused. It is needless to say now Section 498-A IPC is being misused by reason of which several families are being ruined. A tendency has been developed to rope in all such nearby relatives and friends and also elders who acted as mediators for fixing the marriages or for settling the matrimonial disputes mainly to wreck vengeance consequential in nature or force the other parties to accept their terms. It destabilizes the matrimonial system, brings about unhappiness among the members of the families concerned. For the people of this country, marriage bond is sacred or sacrosanct and family unity is paramount and any thing else is considered as secondary, by reason of which the matrimonial system needs to be protected. Consequentially any breakage of marriage collapses the family and which results in disruption of peace which leads to unhappy, insecurity and loss of hope among the family members. Further, false iimplications are to be avoided as it weakens genuine cases of matrimonial harassments. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in the calendar case on the ground that prima facie necessary material is not placed in order to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in the calendar case are quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 23.9.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011