HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7365 OF 2008 DATE:18-11-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 (For short, ‘A-2 to A-6’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.81 of 2004, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-2 to A-6, the Respondent No. 2 is the de-facto complainant in C.C. No.81 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows : A-1 is the husband of the de-facto complainant, A-2 is the father of A-1, A-4 and A-6 are the brothers of A-1, A-3 is the step mother of A-1, A-4 and A-6 and A-5 is the wife of A-4 respectively. The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 01- 06-2001 as per Hindu rites and customs in Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple Mandapam at Pallikonda near Gudiyatham, N.A. District, Tamilnadu and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 15 sovereigns of gold and household articles worth about Rs.60,000/- were given to A-1. Subsequently, i.e. three months after their happy marital life, A-1 to A-6 started to harass and ill-treat her for want of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- on the pretext of A-1 going to Australia and they sold away her gold ornaments. Initially, the parents of the de-facto complainant expressed their inability to comply with their demand and finally with great difficulty, the father of the de-facto complainant secured Rs.30,000/- and gave the same to A-1. Thereafter, A-1 left to Australia with the entire sale proceeds of the gold ornaments of the de-facto complainant leaving the de-facto complainant with A-2 to A-6. Further, upon the instructions of A-1, A-2 to A-6 further harassed her to secure additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for securing a job to A-1 and also for her joining with A-1 at Australia. The specific accusation against the Petitioners/A-2 to A-6 is that they threatened the de-facto complainant to fulfill their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- claiming that otherwise, they would perform second marriage to A-1 and finally A-2 to A-6 as per the direction of A-1, drove the de-facto complainant from their house on 16-03-2002 and thus A-2 to A-6 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners/A-2 to A-6 that except the allegation that they harassed the de-facto complainant to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for securing a job for A-1 in Australia, no other allegations are there to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. It is further his contention that only bald allegations are made against them and A-2 and A-3 are senior citizens and residents of Mariyamma Koil Street, North Pasumattur Post, Tamilnadu State and A-4 to A-6 are residents of II Cross Street, Bangalore, Karnataka State and all of them are living separately from A-1 and this case is only foisted by the de-facto complainant to harass them and hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. No dispute is raised about the plea that A-2 to A-6 are living separately from A-1. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto complainant that as per the direction of A-1, A-2 to A-6 harassed the de-facto complainant mentally and physically for the purpose of bringing additional dowry and hence A-2 to A-6 are liable to be punished as per law and there are no merits in the Petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against A-2 to A-6, as prayed for? 7. Point: The main allegations are against A-1 and A-2 with regards to the alleged offences. It is important that there is one specific allegation made against A-3 to A-6 that on 16-03-2002 they harassed her along with A-1 and A-2 to secure Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of A-1’s settlement at Australia claiming that otherwise, they would perform the second marriage to A-1. It is easy to create such allegation. 8. It is pertinent to note here that in cases of this nature, there has been an attempt to rope in as many relatives of concerned spouse as possible and hence before taking cognizance of similar matters, proper care is to be taken by the concerned Magistrates. Further, significantly A-4 to A-6 are said to be the residents of different places and A-3 is the step mother of A-1, A-4 and A-6. There is no use of prosecuting A-3 to A-6 and prosecuting them amounts to nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the entire proceedings in Calender Case No.81 of 2004, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, in so far as the Petitioners/A-3 to A-6 are concerned and the Criminal Petition is dismissed, in so far as the Petitioner/A-2 is concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 18-11-2011. Dsh/Kvr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 1 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7365 OF 2008 November, 18, 2011 DSH/KVR