HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7396 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 6/A-2 to A-7 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-2 and A-3 are parents, A-4 is younger brother and A-5 and A-6 are sisters of A-1, who is husband of the 2nd respondent –defacto complainant. A-1 is not before this court in this petition. A- 7 is wife of A-4. A-5 and A-6 are married sisters and they are residents of Raipur in Chattisghar State living with their respective husbands. A-1 is eldest brother in the family. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place on 16.4.2000. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave gold worth Rs.3,00,000/- and cloths worth Rs.2,00,000/- to A-1. There is no allegation under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against any of the family members other than A-1. 2) The allegations that all the family members were accusing the 2nd respondent as a barren woman as her health was not good and harassing the 2nd respondent to give divorce to A-1 so that they would perform another marriage to him and obtained signatures of the 2nd respondent on blank cheques, share certificates and blank stamp papers by using force and threatening her would not attract any of the clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Since there was no commission of suicide by the 2nd respondent or causing grave injury or danger to her life or limb muchless health whether mentally or physically on the 2nd respondent, Clause-(a) thereof has no application to this case at all. 3) The allegation of harassing the 2nd respondent to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents, is made only against A-1. After separation of A-1 and 2nd respondent on 19.3.2009, it is alleged that A-1 to A-4 and A-7 contacted the 2nd respondent over phone and reiterated the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as condition for restoration of family life. 4) It is contended by petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent was leading adulterous life with one Manoj Kumar H. Dembla and therefore, A-1 filed CC No.310 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC and that as a counter blast for the said case, the 2nd respondent instituted the present report to the police, who filed charge sheet subsequently. Unless the woman is driven to the wall, she will not come out with her woes in public and to court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present case is a counter blast for CC No.310 of 2009. 5) It is stated that there are five matters pending between the parties in civil, criminal and marital courts. The said fact indicates that there are bitter differences between the couple and their families. 6) In so far as the allegation of talking over phone to Vijayawada from Visakhapatnam by A-2 to A-4 and A-7 put together is ex facie exaggeration. The younger members of the family like A-4 and A-7 talking to the second respondent over phone and threatening and demanding her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- is nothing short of high improbability. 7. In matters of differences between the married couple, it is noticed that all the family members are included in cases of this nature by making omnibus allegations against all of them put together. Even sisters of A-1, who are married and who are living in Chattisghar State are also roped into this case. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of this case against A-4 to A-7 is nothing but abuse of process of law and cannot be allowed to be proceeded further. In so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, this court is of the opinion that there is a triable case against them and there are no grounds to give them clean chit at this stage. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC No.485 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Vijayawada, in so far as the petitioners 3 to 6/A-4 to A-7 are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are concerned. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 16.12.2011 Mjl/*