THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2680 of 2008 (Dated : 23-11-2011) Between: Smt. Aabidun W/o Mahaboob Khan And another ...Petitioners A n d State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2680 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-4-Smt.Aabidun and A-6-Kum. Rameeza in C.C.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise offences, Sangareddy to quash the proceedings therein against them. 2. The petitioners herein are the sisters of A-1- Muzavar Noor Basha. Smt. Naseema is the wife of A-1-Mohd. Noor Basha. She presented a report against her husband, her in-laws and the petitioners herein before the Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram alleging inter alia that A-1-Noor Basha married her on 11th March, 2003 as per the muslim customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave 20 tolas of gold, Rs.15,000/- in cash in the form of D.D, Rs.35,0000/- cash and Rs.15,000/- worth of other household articles. After the marriage, they settled at Ramchandrapuram for business purpose. She gained pregnancy and therefore, she went to her native place in Kerala for delivery and returned to Ramachandrapuram after the birth of a son on 25th June, 2004. When she was away from her husband, her in-laws, came and settled with her husband. Her husband started demanding money for running his business. Her parents gave Rs.15,000/- to her husband for his business. As and when he visited Kerala, he used to demand money from her parents. In the month of Feburary, 2006, her parents gave Rs.30,000/- for developing his business. She was harassed by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law (petitioners herein) both physically and mentally and some times, they have not given her food also. They instigated her husband to beat her. On two occasions, she was beaten mercilessly by her husband. Neither her in-laws nor sisters-in-law came to her rescue. On receipt of the report, the Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram registered a case in Crime No.321 of 2006 under Section 498-A IPC and took up investigation. After completing investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramchandrapuram filed charge sheet in the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. 3. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.152 of 2008. Hence this criminal petition by A-4 and A-5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer stated supra. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that except making a bald allegation against the petitioners that they instigated A-1 to beat the de facto complainant, no specific instances have been stated in the report presented by the defacto complainant- 2nd respondent. Learned counsel would also submit that A-2 and A-3 who are the parents of A-1 approached this Court by filing criminal petition No.2540 of 2008 and the said petition came to be allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.152 of 2008 against them. The case of the petitioners herein stands on the same footing as that of A-2 and A-3 and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. 6. Learned counsel placed on record copy of the order dated 15-7- 2010 passed in Criminal Petition No.2540 of 2008. Paragraph (4) of the order dated 15-7-2010 reads as hereunder:- “4. Petitioners herein are the parents of A1 and in-laws of the 2nd respondent herein. Police filed charge sheet against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC showing them as A2 and A3. The allegation levelled against the present petitioners in that they were harassing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally and more particularly instigated A1, who started beating her. The only allegation is that at the instance of the petitioners, A1 used to beat her. Mere beating the wife does not amount to cruelty. If the act done by the husband is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to life or limb, then only it is cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC. If the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, at this stage, do not make out prima facie offence under Section 498-A IPC insofar as the present petitioners-A2 and A-3 are concerned. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law”. 7. It is not in dispute that the case against present petitioners stands on the same footing as that of A-2 and A-3. The present petitioners (A-4 and A-5) are the sisters of A-1. No specific instances of harassment attributable to the petitioners have been stated in the report presented by the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding in C.C.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise offences, Sangareddy, against petitioners herein, i.e., A-4 and A-5. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.23-11-2011 RAR s