HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3048 of 2008 O R D E R: This criminal petition has been filed by the accused A2 to A5 in CC No. 520 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein so far as they are concerned. 2. A report came to be presented by Akula Sailaja -2nd respondent herein before the Station House Officer Karimnagar Town Police Station on 10—07-2006 alleging itner-alia that she got married to A-1 Pulla Jitender on 09-08-2001 at Hanamkonda and that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/- and presented ornaments worth Rs. 1,00,000/- apart from other household articles. Her parents also gave house plot situated at Babji Nagar, Hyderabad worth Rs.15,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage she left for USA along with her husband and stayed there. It is further stated in the report that her husband at the instigation of her mother–in-law-Suseela and sister-in-law Vijaya and her husband –Ramesh and brother-in-law Rajender harassed her to bring dowry. It is also stated that her sister-in-law used to instigate her husband to harass her over phone. Being not able to put up with harassment, she came out of marital home and has been staying with her parents. After return of her husband to India, some mediations went on and pursuant to the mediations she joined with her husband. Even then, her husband harassed her at the instigation of members of his famly on the ground of additional dowry. The Station House officer, WPS, II Town P.S. Karimnagar received the report and registered a case in Cr.No. 202 of 2006 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 498-A & 506 IPC and U/Secs. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and transferred the CD file to WPS, Karimnagar on the point of jurisdiction and for further investigation. LW-8 –V.Madhavi, Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Karimnagr took up investigation and examined six witnesses and recorded their statements u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Karimnagar. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as CC No. 520 of 2008. Hence this criminal petition by A-2 to A5 with the prayer stated supra. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that except omnibus statement that the petitioners instigated the husband of the defacto complainant-2nd respondent, there are no specific instances of harassment attributed to them and in which case, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Shaik Kusrouddin V. State of A.P.[1] and in Neelu Chopra V. Bharti[2]. 5. In the decision cited 2nd supra, the Supreme Court observed at para Nos. 8 and 9 as hereunder: “8. It seems from the order taking cognizance that the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version of the complainant is supported by Hagwati and Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted to Krishnan Saroop and Rajesh while clothes were entrusted to Rakhee and they refused to hand over the same. Even their statements could not be better than the vague complaint. Even about the clothes, the date on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to be the daughter of the present appellants and the other details are very significantly absent. It was also the version of the complainant that she was beaten in support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. However, in the complaint, it is not seen as to on which date she was beaten and by whom. It is significant to note that the matter against Rakhee, the fourth original accused has already been dropped as she was in fact not event he resident of the same house. 9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed bye ach and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” 6. In the decision cited 1st supra, the learned single Judge of this court quashed the proceedings since no specific allegations against the petitioners therein have been set out in the report. Para Nos. 6 and 7 need to be noted and it is thus: “6. The allegation against petitioners 4 to 9 is that they instigated the first petitioner (a-1) in making a demand for dowry. It is well known that in recent past it has become a practice to make all the members of the family of the husband accused in cases relating to dowry harassment. 7. In this case except baldly stating that petitioners 4 to 9 had instigated the first petitioner to demand more dowry from second respondent, no specific allegations are made against them. So, it is easy to see that petitioners 4 to 9 are roped in only with a view to harass them and so the proceedings against petitioners 4 to 9 can be quashed.” 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the defacto complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners herein instigated A-1, who is her husband, to harass her on the ground of additional dowry and therefore, the proceedings pending against them in CC.520 of 2008 cannot be quashed at this stage. 8. Indisputably, the 2nd respondent and her husband, who has been arrayed as A-1, left for USA and stayed there. According to the 2nd respondent, her husband beat her during her stay in USA. The accusation made against the present petitioners is that they instigated A-1 to beat hear. Indisputably, all the petitioners are staying in India whereas the 2nd respondent -defacto complainant and her husband were stayed at USA at the time of the alleged offence. No specific instances of harassment are set out by 2nd respondent-defacto complainant either in her report presented before the police or in her statement recorded by the police U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. The preposition of law laid down in the above cited cases squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings in CC No. 520 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, against the petitioners amounts of abuse of process of court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A5 in CC No. 520 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar. _____________ 12-08-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2002(2) ALD (Crl.) 195 (AP) [2] (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184