IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PEITTION No.6319 OF 2007 Between: Afreen Taj Sholapur and others … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PEITTION No.6319 OF 2007 ORDER: - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.6, 5 and 4 in C.C.No.409 of 2006, on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners are brothers and sister of A1, whom the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant married on 09.11.2005 at Hyderabad as per Islamic traditions and rights. It is not disputed that the husband of the de facto complainant-A1 is working as Doctor at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, whereas the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the petitioners herein are residents of Karnataka State. After the marriage, A1 demanded additional dowry of house property worth of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- cash for pursuing his postgraduation course and Rs.1,50,000/- towards gold etc. Other accused persons have also supported and encouraged A1 for the said additional dowry. The 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On forwarding the said complaint by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police registered a case in crime No.64 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that except the omni bus allegations against the petitioners, who are students pursuing their education at Karnataka, no specific allegations have been made against them nor the charge sheet indicate about the harassment, if any, made by them. Except stating that all the accused harassed and made demands for additional dowry as her parents promised, no specific allegation is made against the petitioners about their making any demands for additional dowry and the charge sheet allegations also shows that A4 to A6 joined hands in harassment by A1 to A3, which is not sufficient to proceed against them and the case strictly falls under Illustration Nos.3 and 7 enumerated by the apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[1] and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Sri Sarat Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant contends that when it is stated that A2 received dowry amount as per the demand of A1 to A6 from the father of L.W.1; the statement of L.W.5, who is the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Hubli has been recorded and relevant documents were obtained; and when the police after due investigation found that all the accused harassed the deceased, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings at the initial stages and the prosecution should be given an opportunity to establish their case. The entire charge sheet allegations discloses that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the only daughter of her parents, who are staying at Saudi Arabia, where her father is working. Her elder brother is working as a dentist and her another elder brother is student and are staying at Mallepally, Hyderabad. Her parents gave an advertisement for her marriage. In response to the same, A1 and his parents-A2 and A3 approached her parents. Both the elders discussed and decided dowry items and cash to be given to the accused in her marriage as per the demand of A1 to A6. Her marriage was held on 09.11.2005 at Hyderabad as per Islamic traditions and rites and both stayed in her parents’ house for about one week. After the marriage on 16.11.2005 A1 started demanding additional dowry. The other accused supported and encouraged A1. Thereafter she went to Hubli, Karnataka State and joined with her in-laws house along with A1. All the accused have started harassing her physically and mentally, demanding for the said additional dowry by stating that her parents have promised and agreed for additional dowry items. Thus, A1 and his parents-A2 and A3 harassed her both physically and mentally. The entire allegations are against A1 to A3 only. The only allegation against the other accused is that on 06.02.2006 when the 2nd respondent came back to Hyderabad and started staying with her brothers-L.Ws.2 and 3 at Mallepally, all the accused persons harassed her and made demands for additional dowry over telephone and through E-Mails. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A4 to A6 who are younger brothers and younger sister of A1 have always insulted her stating that she is under graduate, not suitable for A1, who is a Doctor and also demanded to bring additional dowry from her parents and thereby joined their hands in harassment made by A1 to A3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police[2], categorically held that when the entire harassment is metted out at place ‘N’, the Magistrate at place ‘N’ only will have jurisdiction and the Magistrate at other places will not have jurisdiction. In the case on hand, when admittedly the petitioners are residents of Karnataka State, they insulted the complainant at Karnataka and the Courts at Karnataka only will have jurisdiction. Further, there is no specific allegation against them to proceed under Section 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The charge sheet is a couched in totally indefinite and vague language. Even if all the averments and accusations made in the complaint are taken as true on its face value, no case is made out against the petitioners and if at all the petitioners have stated that she is under graduate and not suitable for A1, who is a doctor, they cannot be proceeded under Sections 498A or 420 IPC. When the entire allegations are only against A1 to A3, the petitioners, who are the students, have been unnecessarily roped for the said offences and if the same is allowed to continue, it will lead to unnecessary harassment. In view of the same, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A4 to A6 cannot be continued and the same is accordingly quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 21st October 2010 lmv [1] AIR 1992 SC 604 [2] AIR 2004 SC 4286