THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5956 of 2007 3rd March, 2010 Between :- D. Srinivasulu and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5956 of 2007 ORDER;- Heard Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing R.1. 2. The episode of the prosecution is that A.1 is the husband of the 2nd respondent and A.2 and A.3 are the parents of A.1 and A.4 is the sister of A.1, and A.5 is the husband of A.1’s sister. The 2nd respondent who was a resident of Dharmavaram and her marriage was performed with A.1 on 31-8-2001 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent had given Rs.25,000/- and ten tolas of gold to A.1 to A.3 towards dowry. After the marriage, A.1 and 2nd respondent lived happily for six months. Thereafter A.1 to A.5 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. It is also further alleged that the 2nd respondent did not bring Additional dowry as demanded by A.1 to A.5, they used to beat her without providing food to her and also threatened that they will kill her. It is further alleged that in view of the threat to her life, she went to her parents’ house and she came to know that A.1 married one Sandhya and when the 2nd respondent questioned about the marriage of A.1, the accused beat the 2nd respondent with hands and legs and necked from their house and threatened to kill if she stays in their house. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that they were falsely implicated in the crime and the complaint taken its face value do not disclose the offence against the petitioners and there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners to establish the allegations made by the 2nd respondent. Further it is stated that the material relied on by the prosecution was wholly inadequate to sustain the charge against the petitioners and the charge sheet had been filed without any factual foundations against the petitioners. 4. Further it is stated that the allegations made against the petitioners in relation to the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the light of the clear language of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further stated that although the investigation against them is at liberty to register a crime and conduct investigation into the offence under Section 494 I.P.C., the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence in view of the mandatory provision of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further it is stated that the initial cognizance taken by the Court upon the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer itself is bad and it clearly vitiates the charge. 5. It is also further stated that the 2nd respondent left the house of A.1 on 28-2-2003 and A.1 also issued a legal notice on 29-9-2004 to the 2nd respondent requesting her to come and joit with A.1 to lead a happy married life, but the 2nd respondent did not come to the house of A.1. The 2nd respondent made a complaint with the police on 18-6- 2005 i.e., after nearly two years from the date of her leaving the house. Hence, the question of harassing the 2nd respondent does not arise with regard to demanding the additional dowry. 6. This Court had carefully gone through the material available on record and the contents of the charge sheet as well. Even on a careful reading of the averments made in the charge sheet and also after thoroughly gone through the material which had been placed before this Court, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied at all. Hence, the charge in relation to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.110/2007 is hereby quashed. It is stated that the other offences are triable by the competitive Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Further liberty is given to the petitioners to take advantage of the other grounds at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent of quashing of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code only. 7. The Criminal Petition is hereby partly allowed to the extent indicated above. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 3rd March, 2010 smr