HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4087 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3/ A1 to A3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC in CC No. 84 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A1. A-2 is mother of A-1. A-3 is sister of A-2. A-3 is not residing with A-1 and A2. 2. It is alleged that at the time of marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1, her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/-, 12 tolas of gold towards dowry and incurred Rs.2,50,000/- for other expenses and that subsequently, A-1 to A-3 started harassing the 2nd respondent as she was childless and tried to end her life and that A-1 used to man handle and threaten her saying that he would marry another lady and that the accused took the 2nd respondent to a doctor for acupuncture treatment but of no use and that harassment of A-1 to A3 became unbearable to the 2nd respondent as she was childless. 3. In this petition under Section 482 IPC, this court cannot go into truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the prosecution and the defacto complainant. It has to be seen whether those allegations on their face value make out the offence for which the petitioners were charged in this case. It is for the trial court to go into the question of truth or otherwise of those allegations. 4. With this limited scope of scrutiny in my mind, if the prosecution allegations are examined, this court is of the opinion that the allegations do not attract cruelty contemplated under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. There are absolutely no allegations of demand for additional dowry or further presents. Therefore, Clause (b) has no application herein. 5. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC is applicable to facts of this case. It reads as follows: “Explanation : for the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means – a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.” 6. No doubt, there are allegations of beating, kicking etc., against A-1 towards the 2nd respondent. In order to attract Clause (a), those beating and kicking should be of such a nature as is liable to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the 2nd respondent. Those alleged acts did not drive the 2nd respondent to commit suicide. There was no suicide by the 2nd respondent muchless an attempt to commit suicide by her. There is no allegation of overtacts of A-1 to A3 causing grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the 2nd respondent. The root cause for trouble in this case is the 2nd respondent not conceiving a child. No doubt, the 2nd respondent alone cannot be blamed for the same. She makes certain allegations against A-1 with regard to some defects in his genetalia. Assuming for a moment that A-1 to A3 got the 2nd respondent treated by several means including Ayurvedic and acupuncture for which she suffered pain, they cannot satisfy the ingredients of causing grave injury or danger to life, limb and health of the 2nd respondent, as required under Clause (a). Neither life of the 2nd respondent nor any limb of the 2nd respondent nor health of the 2nd respondent was endangered by such treatment. Intention of the accused for giving such treatment to the 2nd respondent, was only to have a child through her. In case 2nd respondent suffered any pain during the course of medical treatment, it cannot be equated with harassment of her as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC. 7. Thus, viewed from any angle and taking allegations in the charge sheet and in the complaint/report of the 2nd respondent on their face value, this court is of the opinion that penal provision contained in section 498-A IPC is wholly inapplicable to this case. 18. Hence, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No. 84 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4087 of 2009 Dated: 20-08-2010 Mjl/*