THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4947 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Gudipally Ravin Reddy, S/o.Hanmanth Reddy & 7 others. … Petitioners-A1 to A8 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its State Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4947 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 8/A1 to A8 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.105 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. A2 is mother of A1. A3 and A4 are sisters of A2. A5 and A6 are sons of A4. They are students. A7 and A8 are brothers of A2. Marriage of A1 with the defacto complainant took place on 21.11.2007 at Brindavan Gardens, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Both of them lived together after marriage for about 25 days. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent presented cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 25 tolas of gold apart from household articles. It is further alleged that subsequently A1 demanded the 2nd respondent to bring additional dowry and harassed her and that parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- to A1 and that inspite of giving Rs.1,00,000/-, all the accused harassed the 2nd respondent for Rs.1,00,000/- more and that the 2nd respondent consumed mosquito repellant poison and was admitted in hospital and that on 31.01.2009, all the accused necked the 2nd respondent out of the family house and asked her not to return until their demand was fulfilled. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the entire alleged incidents took place at Hyderabad only and that therefore, the Court at Kamareddy has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case. As per statements of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses, the accused are stated to have gone to Kamareddy to parents house of the 2nd respondent and demanded additional dowry. In view of the said allegation, it cannot be said that the Court at Kamareddy has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. 3. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that omnibus allegations were made against A1 to A8 without making specific allegations against them with a view to harass all the accused and that it is nothing short of abuse of process of law. Even though A1 to A8 are specifically named, only omnibus allegations were made against all of them put together with regard to the alleged harassment. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that it is a matter of evidence to be decided by the trial Court after trial. But the question is whether all the accused were impleaded with a view to counter harass them as a measure of abuse of process of law. Even if there is demand for payment of additional dowry and payment of the same, none of A3 to A8 is going to be benefited of the same. As pointed out earlier, A5 & A6 are students. A7 and A8 are not residents of Hyderabad at all. A7 is a resident of Byathole in Medak Mandal and A8 is a resident of Raghavapally Village of Nagireddipet Mandal. A3 to A8 are related only through A2. This Court is of the opinion that this is a glaring example of abuse of the provision under Section 498(A) IPC by implicating all distant relations into the case by making omnibus allegations. On a mere look at the charge sheet and documents filed along with the charge sheet, it is evident that making allegations against A3 to A8 and filing charge sheet against them is nothing but abuse of process of law. It would be far fetching to say that A3 to A8 joined A1 and A2 either in demanding additional dowry or in harassing the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry. 4. In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.NO.105 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District insofar as the petitioners 3 to 8/A3 to A8 are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1& 2/A1 & A2 are concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 24.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4947 of 2009 DATED: 24.02.2011 ysk