THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7806 of 2008, 8323 of 2008, 8509 of 2008, 2091 of 2009 and 2515 of 2009 Dated 08-12-2011 Crl.P.No.7806 of 2008: Between: Rayapati Savithri and another. ..Petitioners. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondents. Crl.P.No.8323 of 2008: Between: Siruvuri Prasanthi Varma. ..Petitioner. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondents. Crl.P.No.8509 of 2008: Between: Kopperla Vijayarama Raju and another. ..Petitioners. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondents. Crl.P.No.2091 of 2009: Between: Vadapalli Chandrasekharavarma and another. ..Petitioners. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondents. Crl.P.No.2515 of 2009: Between: Siruvuri Prabhakara Varma and another. ..Petitioners. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7806 of 2008, 8323 of 2008, 8509 of 2008, 2091 of 2009 and 2515 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.7806 of 2008 are A.7, A.8, petitioner in Crl.P.No.8323 of 2008 is A.4, the petitioners in Crl.P.No.8509 of 2008 are A.9 and A.10, the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2091 of 2009 are A.5 and A.6 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2515 of 2009 is A.3. The petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant in all these petitions. On the complainant given by the defacto complainant, the police registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 of Balijipeta Police Station and after completing investigation, laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 406, 385 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri G.Rama Gopal and learned counsel for the defacto complainant Smt. M.B.Lakshmi and the Additional Public Prosecutor however taken this Court through the contents of the Charge Sheet and also the contents of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein and the statements of the 2nd respondent recorded by the police. The main submission of Sri G.Rama Gopal learned counsel for the petitioners is that even the distant relatives of A.1 who are residing at some other place have been roped along with the husband and in-laws to harass the petitioners and there are no specific allegations against A.5, A.7, A.8 and A.10 and in view of the same, the proceedings may be quashed at least against these accused. It is also his submission that the apex Court in a decision reported in KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ([1]) has taken cognizance of the present day tendency for roping for all relations of in-laws by the wives in the matter arising out of domestic quarrels. His main submission is that the second respondent resided hardly for 45 days in the house of in-laws and therefore, the allegations on the face of it go to show that they are false, baseless and unbelievable. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi submitted that the 2nd respondent who entered into her matrimonial home with fond hope to lead happy marital life was subjected to harassment and it is also her submission that specific allegations have been made against each of the accused, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is also her submission that the 2nd respondent has narrated as to how she was harassed and deprived of her proper food and forced to sign on blank papers and demanded additional dowry within short span of her stay in her in-law’s house. It is also her further submission that police have enquired into the matter and recorded the statement of witnesses. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the proceedings have to be quashed?. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the apex Court 1st cited. In that case, the married women died and the death was found to have occurred not under ordinary circumstances. Thus, it was a case of dowry death. After investigation, police filed charge sheet against the husband, the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased. Then the father of the deceased filed separate petition under Section 302 and 304 B I.P.C. against the respondents. Both the cases were clubbed together. In the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, the mother of the husband and sister-in-law of the husband of were roped as an accused. They were acquitted by the High Court. There was no incriminating evidence against those accused persons. The apex Court observed in the 1st cited decision as follows: “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” In view of the above referred facts that the police investigation in that case did not point out the accusations against the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law but other relatives were subsequently impleaded in a private complaint by the father of the deceased and since the observations were made by the apex Court while dealing with an appeal in a case of conviction, it is clear that the present case can be distinguished on facts from that case. In this case, we are only at the initial stage. The trial is not yet commenced in this case and we are dealing with quash petitions challenging the charge sheet. The law as far as the quash petitions is concerned, is well settled wherein a case it appears from the allegations made in the complaint or in the Charge Sheet that even if the allegations made therein are taken as true, do not make out a case, then this Court may exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also settled law that powers to quash the criminal proceedings have to be exercised squarely and cautiously. It is also settled law that truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage and apart from that, critical analysis of the statements recorded by the police i.e., whether there are any contradictions or omissions etc., in the statements of the witnesses cannot be examined at this stage. Having regard to the settled principles of law, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts but the basic facts are as follows A.1 is the son of A.2. Husband of A.6 is the sister of A.2. A.7 is the wife of A.8, A.9 and A.10 are brothers of A.2. The marriage of 2nd respondent and A.1 was solemnized on 28/29-2-2004 at Vizianagaram. The case of the 2nd respondent is that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.70,000/- as adapaduchu katnam was presented at the time of marriage. It is also her case that marriage was fixed as per the convenience of A.4 who came from U.S.A. in advance along with her husband. It is alleged that A.4 went to U.S.A. even before the marriage alleging that Adapaduchu katnam is not sufficient even to meet her traveling expenses. A.2 and A.3 also harassed her demanding additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Since specific allegations have been made against all the petitioners in all these petitions, I am of the opinion that the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, all the petitioners are dismissed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 08-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7806 of 2008, 8323 of 2008, 8509 of 2008, 2091 of 2009 and 2515 of 2009 Dated 08-12-2011 [1] AIR 2000 SC 2324