HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.12295 of 2010 ORDER:- Petitioners herein are A-2 to A-7 in the criminal case C.C.No.211 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), for quashing the proceedings in the said case against them. 2. The offences alleged against these petitioners and the first accused (A-1) in the case are those punishable under Section 498- A IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case arises out of Crime No.122 of 2010 of Puttur Police Station. The first respondent herein is wife of A-1. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and petitioners 3 and 5 are sisters of A-1. Petitioners 4 and 6 are husbands of the petitioners 3 and 5 respectively. 3. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the marriage of the first respondent and A-1 took place on 06.08.2008 at Nellore and that thereafter all the petitioners and A-1 subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty for additional dowry and property. It must be mentioned here that initially the second respondent filed a private complaint before the trial court and the same was referred to the concerned police who after investigating the case filed charge sheet against A-1 and these petitioners which was registered as the above criminal case in the trial court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that all the allegations in the charge sheet are very bald in nature and do not show any offences against these petitioners and therefore the case against them should be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the charge sheet and the other record contain several allegations disclosing the offences which are mentioned in the charge sheet against all the petitioners and that this is not a fit case for interference by this court and the trial court should be allowed to go ahead with the trial. 5. So far as the petitioners 1 and 2 who are the parents-in-law of the first respondent are concerned, it may be noted that in the complaint itself it is alleged that they initially agreed to perform the marriage on 23.04.2008 but since the parents of the first respondent failed to pay the balance dowry the amount of Rs.5 lakhs due by that date, they even postponed the marriage till the receipt of that amount and that the marriage was ultimately solemnized on 06.08.2008. The complaint and the charge sheet are also replete with several specific allegations which show that both the petitioners also harassed the first respondent for money and properties in addition to the dowry which was already paid. Several contentions raised on their behalf by their learned counsel would all fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact which have to be adjudicated in the trial court. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that so far as these two petitioners are concerned there are no grounds to quash the case. 6. Then coming to petitioners 3 to 6, as already stated supra the petitioners 3 and 5 are sisters of A-1 and the petitioners 4 and 6 are their husbands. It is stated that the petitioners 3 and 4 are living separately in Vijayawada whereas petitioners 5 and 6 are living at Koretipadu, Amaravathi Road, Guntur District. It is stated that by the time of the marriage of the first respondent with A-1, petitioners 3 and 5 were already married and they were living with their husbands at the above places which are said to be quite far off either from Nellore i.e. the place of the in-laws of the first respondent or Puttur which is the parents place of the first respondent. What is alleged against them in the complaint is that they came over to Nellore i.e. the in-laws place of the first respondent when she was there and all the four harassed her demanding dowry and heckling at her regarding certain presentations given by her parents on the ground that they were of no value at all. It may be noted that these four petitioners are admittedly living away and it would be difficult to accept that they have any interest in separating A-1 from his wife i.e. the first respondent herein on one pretext or the other. 7. Nothing is elicited in the complaint or in the charge sheet as to why they should intervene in the matter and demand money or property from the parents of the first respondent and whether they have any share in it. It may be noted that normally the sisters of the husband cannot be expected to have any share in the money or property brought by a lady from her parents and if any such money is given normally only that lady or her husband would enjoy it. To repeat, the first respondent has not come out with any specific case against these petitioners who have their own families at places away from Puttur or Nellore. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the case against them should be quashed having regard to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court given in PREETHI GUPTA vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[1]. 8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this petition insofar as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned is dismissed but insofar as petitioners 3 to 6 are concerned it is allowed and the proceedings against them in the case in question on the file of the trial court are quashed. 9. It is however made clear that this order shall not be understood to preclude the trial court from proceeding against petitioners 3 to 6 in case that is warranted as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. Parting with the matter the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that having regard to the ages of the petitioners 1 and 2 their presence for every date of hearing before the trial court should be dispensed with. It is true that the first petitioner is shown as aged about 60 years and the second petitioner who is a lady is shown as aged about 55 years. However having regard to the allegations in the charge sheet which show that both these petitioners have even postponed the marriage on the ground that full amount of agreed dowry was not paid, I am of the opinion that the relief sought for which is usually granted by this court for ladies and aged people in cases like this should not be given to these petitioners. Accordingly that request of the petitioners is also rejected. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 22nd July 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667