IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5335 of 2009 DATE: 28.02.2011 Between: P.Suresh and others …… Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and & 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5335 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 and A-3 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.469 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. As on today, the 2nd respondent is no more. A-2/3rd respondent is mother of A-1. It is reported that A-2 is also no more. A-3 is paternal uncle of A-1. A-4 is wife of A-3. A-5 is related to the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 were harassing the 2nd respondent mentally and physically demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that A-3 and A-4 used to instigate A-1 and A-2 in harassing the 2nd respondent and that A-5 was always supporting the activities of A-1 to A-4. At this stage itself it may be noted that A-5 is not a relation of A-1; and in fact he is related to the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. It is the husband and husband’s relations who are capable of committing an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C and not any others than husband and his relations. Therefore, even if it is taken that A-5 was supporting the activities of A-1 to A-4, A-5 committed no offence at all muchless one under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2) With regard to the property dispute relating to house property in which A-3 and A-4 are residing, it may not be a subject matter of a dispute under Section 498-A I.P.C. After returning from U.S.A, A-1 began residing with A-3 and A-4 in the disputed property. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the evidence of auto driver and watchman are not sufficient to prove the offences alleged against the petitioners. By placing reliance on Madhavarao Jiwaji Rao Scindia V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[1] and Inder Mohan Goswami V. State of Uttaranchal[2] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when the evidence collected by the investigating officer is so hopeless and chances of convicting the accused are so bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court has to see uncontroverted allegations made in F.I.R and complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same to find that there is prima facie case and that the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable. On reading of statements and the watchman and auto driver, there is prima facie evidence to show that there were bitter differences between A-1 and the 2nd respondent and harassment of the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically. According to the 2nd respondent, the said harassment is for the sake of demand for additional dowry. A-1, A-3 and A-4 are closely related to each other and lived together for some time after A-1 returned from U.S.A. Therefore, it would be premature for this Court to come to the conclusion about their complicity in harassing the 2nd respondent and in assessing the evidence collected during investigation. It is for the trial Court to assess the evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial and to come to a conclusion on merits. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in so far as A-1, A-3 and A-4 are concerned. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.469 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in so far as the 4th petitioner/A-5 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1, A-3 and A- 4 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 28, 2011 ksh [1] AIR 1988 Supreme Court 709 [2] AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251