HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9577 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.148 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa. A.1 who is not a petitioner herein is husband of the second respondent/defacto-complainant. A.2 is mother and A.3 is sister of A.1. There is no dispute about relationship. Marriage of the seond respondent with A.1 took place on 22.05.2006 at Kadapa. After marriage, the second respondent joined A.1’s house. A.1 has been working as Lecturer in Madina Engineering College, Kadapa. After completing her degree course at Mangalore, the second respondent began residing with A.1. A.2 is resident of the same house. A.3 is a married sister of A.1 and is residing in a separate house in separate locality in Proddatur itself. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 were harassing the second respondent and that A.1 and A.2 were insulting the second respondent by saying that if A.1 married another alliance he would have got more dowry. It is further alleged that A.2 stopped servant maid and made the second respondent to do the entire household work. The alleged instigation on the part of A.3, is general and omni- bus in nature. It is specifically pointed out by the second respondent’s counsel that on 31.01.2008 at the time of ‘seemantham’ of the second respondent, A.1 to A.3 abused her parents on the ground that they did not bring any gifts, and that feeling insulted by the said abuses, her father gave gold bangles of her mother to the second respondent. Except this allegation, there is no other specific allegation against A.3. Mere comment of not presenting a gift to the daughter at the time of ‘Srimantham’, cannot be equated with demand for any additional dowry or presents. It is not as if any of the accused snatched gold bangles of the second respondent’s mother by demand. Insofar as first petitioner/A.2 is concerned, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to absolve her of the criminal charges at this stage. A.3 being a married sister of A.1 and being a resident of another house in another locality of the same town, cannot be equated with A.2 in this case. Having regard to the above allegations, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution of A.3 for offence under Section 498-A IPC is abuse of process of law. Insofar as offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, there is no allegation at all against A.3 about any demand or receipt of any dowry at the time of or after marriage of A.1 with the second respondent. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.148 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa, insofar as the second petitioner/A.3 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner/A.2 is concerned. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 27th September, 2010. PNV