THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5708 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Kakumanu Koteswara Rao, S/o.Subbaiah & 4 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5708 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.224 of 2009 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ongole. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is father of the victim girl who was given in marriage to A1. A1 is not a petitioner herein. A2 and A3 are parents, A4 is married sister and A6 is grandmother of A1. A5 is husband of A4. Marriage of A1 with the 2nd respondent’s daughter took place on 29.04.2007. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- was paid towards ‘Adapaduchu katnam’ and Rs.4,00,000/- for gold ornaments and clothes to A1 and his relations. It is further alleged that prior to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage, A1 to A6 demanded bride to get dowry from her parents to the tune of Rs.60 or 70 Lakhs for the purpose of investing the same in development of Real Estate business at Hyderabad. The couple, after marriage went away to USA (United States of America). Even at USA, there were bitter feelings between the couple and it is alleged that A1 was harassing his wife with the demand for payment of dowry of Rs.60 to 70 Lakhs. It is further alleged that when the 2nd respondent contacted A2 by phone and requested him not to harass his daughter, A2 reiterated his demand for payment of the said dowry and disconnected the telephone. It is also alleged that when the 2nd respondent contacted A4 to A6, they also did not help the 2nd respondent and asked him to comply with the demand for the said dowry. Even though there are allegations of receipt of ‘Adapaduchu Katnam’, gold ornaments etc. at the time of marriage, there is no allegation against A5 or A6 about they receiving any part of the dowry from the 2nd respondent and they subjecting the 2nd respondent’s daughter to cruelty by way of harassment for the sake of dowry etc. In the absence of any such allegations against A5 and A6, in my opinion, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, even though they supported A1 to A3 and did not come forward on behalf of the 2nd respondent to the other accused for effecting settlement. This Court is of the opinion that prosecution of A5 and A6 would be abuse of process of law. Insofar as A2 to A4 are concerned, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to give relief to them in this petition. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No. 224 of 2009 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ongole insofar as the Petitioners 4 and 5/A5 and A6 are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3/A2 to A4 are concerned. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 01.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5708 of 2009 DATED: 01.03.2011 ysk