IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528 of 2009 DATE:11.11.2010 Between: Deekollu Rajyalakshmi and 2 others …… Petitioners And State of A.P. through PS Bheemavaram II Town P.S Represented by Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-2 to A-4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C in C.C.No.160 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1 who is not a petitioner herein. A-2 is mother, A-3 is brother and A-4 is married sister of A-1. A-4 has been residing at Kothamupparru village of Pedapadu Mandal in West Godavari District. Whereas A-1 and A-2 are residents of Hanuman Junction which bifurcates Krishna and West Godavari Districts. It is alleged that after marriage which took place on 16.09.2002, the 2nd respondent joined A-1 at her in-law’s house and that during that time A-1 was working at Vizag. It is alleged that A-2 to A-4 also came to Vizag where A-1 and the 2nd respondent resided together and began demanding additional dowry saying that amount already given towards dowry at the time of marriage was not sufficient. It is further alleged that A-2 to A-4 were instigating as well as supporting A-1 when A-1 was subjecting the 2nd respondent to harassment for the sake of additional dowry. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only general and omnibus allegations were made against all the accused and no specific allegations were made against any of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent filed this false case against the petitioners as counter blast for the divorce petition filed by A-1. Truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be gone into in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as it is a question of fact. In so far as the married sister, who is A-4 is concerned, it would be preposterous to allege that she either came to Hanuman Junction or to Vizag and lived with A-1 and the 2nd respondent and harassed the 2nd respondent. She is a resident of Kothamupparru in West Godavari District and has been residing with her family in that district. It is not the 2nd respondent’s case that A-4 left her family and came away to either Vizag or to Hanuman Junction once and for all. On reading of the material on record including allegations in the charge sheet and statement of the 2nd respondent recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, I am satisfied that A-4 was unnecessarily impleaded in this case with a view to counter harass all relations of A-1 and that prosecution of A-4 in this case is nothing but abuse of process of law. In so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, it is for the trial Court to decide the allegations against them. 3) In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.160 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram in so far as the 2nd petitioner/A-4 is concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 11, 2010 ksh