THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 OF 2009 DATED: 12-08-2010 Between 1.P.Reshna Beguma and two others …Petitioners-A3,A4 and A6 And 1.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in DVC No.2 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 2. It is alleged that A1 is the husband of complainant. A2 is the younger brother of A1. A3 and A4 are the elder sisters of A1 and A2. A5 and A6 are the parents of A1 to A4. The marriage of the complainant with A1 took place on 09-09-2004 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.3,50,000/- as dowry and 15 tulas of gold. Six months after the marriage, the accused harassed and ill-treated the complainant both physically and mentally for additional dowry. They were not allowed her to take food. At the time of her brother’s marriage, her parents gave bangles worth about Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- worth of gold chain. Though she conceived pregnancy, the accused failed to provide medical checkup. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no relief is sought against the present petitioners and the relief claimed in the complaint is to return gold jewellery articles, cloths shown in the schedule and direct the accused to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing both physical and mental harassment, economic abuses etc., 4. These reliefs can be granted against the husband. Even in a case of gold jewellery, there is allegation in the complaint, which would go to show that gold jewellery was sold away by A1 who is not a party to the present petition. Therefore, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, an omnibus accusation is leveled against the present petitioners, who are the sister-in-laws and mother-in-law of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the marriages of the A3 and A4 had taken place long back and they are residing with their respective husbands at different places and they are nothing to do with the shared house-hold of the complainant. Even if the allegations are to be accepted as true and correct at this stage, the relief that can be granted is only against A1. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in DVC No.2 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalli, Chittoor District, insofar as the present petitioners-A3, A4 and A6 are concerned. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:12-08-2010 Hsd