HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5384 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3 / A2 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC No. 652 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A1. A1 is not figuring as petitioner herein. A2 andA3 are parents of A1. A4 is brother of A3. There is no dispute about marriage between the 2nd respondent and A1 on 19-2-2006. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the 2nd respondent’s mother gave dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and 10 tolas of gold etc., to A1 to A3 on their demand. It is further alleged that after marriage, the 2nd respondent was taken to A-1’s house for two days and that during that period, A2 and A3 were proclaiming that they were having offer of pay dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and in spite of it, they preferred alliance of the 2nd respondent as they liked this alliance. 3. No doubt, there are direct allegations of demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- by A-1. There is no other allegation of A2 and A3 demanding additional dowry from the 2nd respondent muchless harassing her for its sake. In SHAKSON BELTHISSOR V. STATE OF KERALA [1] the Supreme Court dealt with scope of applicability of section 498-A IPC, particularly with reference to Clauses (a) & (b) of Explanation to that section. There are no allegations touching Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC in this case. In so far as application of Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC is concerned, there are allegations of demanding for additional dowry by A-1 and the resultant harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-1. In spite of it, the petitioners 1 and 2 /A- 2 and A-3 cannot get total relief of quashing entire proceedings pending in the lower court, in this petition, because there are direct allegations of demanding and receiving dowry touching offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ Counsel that allegations of demanding and receiving of dowry are usually made in all such cases and no relief can be granted to any party on such usual allegations. It would be a matter of fact to find out by the lower court after trial whether allegations regarding demand for dowry and receipt of dowry by A1 to A3 are correct or not. It is sufficient here to observe that the lower court while framing charges against A2 and A3 will take note of the above observations and to frame appropriate charges against A2 and A3 and not all charges in respect of which the charge sheet was filed by the police. 5. In so far as A4 who is maternal uncle of A1 is concerned, this court finds that there are no specific overtacts touching either Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 498-AIPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against him. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is party allowed quashing proceedings in CC No. 652 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District, in so far as 3rd petitioner/ A4 is concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are concerned subject to the above observations. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 29-10-2010 Mjl/* [1] (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases, 466