THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 5481 of 2009 Order: This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A5 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.186 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- cum-Mahila Court, Nampally, Hyderabad. Accused No.1 in the above said case is not before this Court. A2 to A5 are the petitioners herein. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that A1’s father late Venkateshwar belonging to Vysya caste married a muslim woman namely Tehrunnisa who later changed her name as Smt. K. Alivelu Mangamma. They had four children and A1 was their third issue. The case of the second respondent herein is that on 07.01.2007 Vasavi Seva Kendram, Khairathabad, Hyderabad, arranged get together marriage bureau only for Arya Vysya boys and girls and A1 participated and informed that he belongs to Arya Vysya caste and he is a computer expert and running a business as ‘Media Merchants’ at premises No.6-1-1020/1, Barkhat Manzil, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. With regard to his family background A1 seems to have informed the second respondent herein that his parents expired and introduced the first petitioner as his aunt and the second petitioner as his uncle. Then both the said elders arranged the marriage of A1 with the second respondent. It is also alleged that the elders from both sides decided Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry including gold worth Rs.1.5 lakhs and rest as net cash. On 29.04.2007 marriage was solemnized at Shree Rama Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad as per Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage they started leading marital life in a rented house. After few days, A1 told about his brother, sister and mother who all belong to a Muslim religion. It is alleged that the second respondent became shocked on hearing such relation and after about six months her husband appointed one Mallika, the fourth petitioner herein, as an employee in his office and he used to move closely with her and used to disclose all the family matters to her. At that time the second respondent became pregnant. It is alleged that A1 used to tell her that he has no time to take her to the hospital for check-up and because of mental and physical torture the second respondent herein became ill and was unable to get up. Then her parents took her to Mumbai and after consulting the doctor abortion was done on 15.03.2008 with the consent of A1. Alleging that there was no change in the behaviour of A1 and still demanding money towards additional dowry she lodged a complaint, basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No.547 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 417 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The statement of the second respondent herein recorded by the police is also placed before me. I have gone through the said statement recorded by the police. The same allegations which have been referred above have been made by her in her statement. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and no specific allegations are made against them and continuing the proceedings against them may amount to abuse of process of the Court and result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. A reading of the allegations made in the charge sheet or in the statement of the second respondent herein do not clearly make out any case either for the offences under Sections 498-A and 417 IPC or under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations simply go to show that the elders from both sides decided Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry including gold worth Rs.1.5 lakhs and rest as net cash. There is no allegation that the petitioners forced to give any dowry or that the second respondent or her parents gave dowry to A1. Admittedly, after the marriage the second respondent and A1 lived together for some time and the second respondent became pregnant. The only allegation made against A1 is that he informed that his brother, sister and mother belong to muslim religion and that the fourth petitioner herein was employed by A1 and she was moving closely with A1. It appears that the mother of A1 expired about 7 years back. I have given due consideration to all the allegations made in the charge sheet and also in the complaint and I am of the considered that continuing the proceedings against the petitioners herein would amount to unnecessary harassment to them and also abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A5 alone are quashed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 08.12.2011 Nsr