THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6419 of 2007 DATED:13-07-2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.382 of 2006 on the file of the leaned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the de facto complainant was performed on 05-05-1994 with the 1st petitioner-A1 and for a period of four months they lead happy marital life and subsequently, the petitioners herein and other accused harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and necked her out of their house. Thereupon the de facto complainant approached the police and gave a report against all the accused, based on which the Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.58/2006 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused and the accused were arrested on 21-03-2006 and sent to judicial custody and subsequently released on bail. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all there are six accused i.e. A1 to A6 and when A3 to A6 approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.461 of 2007, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.382 of 2006, this Court vide its order, dated 02-03-2007, allowed the said petition and quashed the said proceedings insofar as A3 to A6 are concerned. He contends that the petitioners herein also stand on the same footing and as such the said proceedings against them are to be quashed. However, the said contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and according to him the 1st petitioner-A1 is the husband and the 2nd petitioner is none other than the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and these two persons are responsible for the alleged harassment and the proceedings insofar as these two petitioners are concerned are not on par with the other accused and as such it is not a case for interference. 5. In the light of the said submissions, this Court has gone into the allegations made in the charge sheet. Apparently, the said allegations made in the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of police, II Town Police station, Kurnool are that A1 to A6 harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry and they got family planning operation to the de facto complainant and though in a panchayat all the accused promised that they will look after the de facto complainant, they did not keep up the word. Apparently, the said allegations appear to be omnibus and if those allegations are taken into consideration, the proceedings insofar as the petitioners herein are to be quashed but there is a specific allegation against the 1st petitioner to the effect that he was forcing the de facto complainant to give divorce to him. 6. In the light of the specific allegation and the other allegations, though omnibus in nature, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings insofar as the 1st petitioner-husband is concerned. However, as the 2nd petitioner, who is the mother-in-law, stands on the same footing as that of the other accused, the proceedings against her can be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.382 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, insofar as the 2nd petitioner-A2- mother-in-law is concerned, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 13th July, 2010. Tsy