HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4599 of 2​008 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.302 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District (JFCM Court) should be quashed. 2. The second respondent herein is admittedly the wife of the first petitioner. Their marriage took place on 24.04.2002 at Dwaraka Tirumala in West Godavari District. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 herein are the brothers of the first petitioner and all the four of them are A1 to A4 in the aforesaid C.C.No.302 of 2007. 3. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint against all the four petitioners in the JFCM Court and the learned Magistrate referred it to Undrajavaram Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. It is seen that the said police investigated the matter as Crime No.79 of 2007 of the said police station and ultimately filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 4. Sri S.R.Sanku, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that a perusal of the charge sheet and the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses especially the de facto complainant would not disclose any offence against all the four petitioners and therefore the proceedings against them should be quashed. Alternatively he pointed out that the record in the matter would not disclose any offence at all against the petitioners 2 to 4 who happened to be the elder brothers of the first petitioner and consequently the proceedings against them should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary the learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently argued that the charge sheet in the case would disclose offences against all the petitioners and consequently this Court cannot interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the above contentions the point is now taken up. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel on either side I have gone through the record which is filed in the form of a paper book by the learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the first petitioner is concerned who is the husband of the second respondent I am of the opinion that the record would disclose against him the offences mentioned in the charge sheet which has been taken cognizance of by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate. I therefore find that there are no grounds to quash the criminal case against the first petitioner and in so far as he is concerned this petition is dismissed. 7. Then coming to the case against the petitioners 2 to 4 it may be noted that all of them are the elder brothers of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is stated to be a resident of Chilakampadu village, the third petitioner and the fourth petitioner are stated to be residents of Duvva village. The petitioners 2 to 4 are stated to have their own avocations of life and nothing to do with the first petitioner and his family life. It may also be noted here that the second respondent in her complaint has clearly stated that soon after the marriage, herself and her husband lived at various places in Hyderabad and later on for some time in Kurnool and that she was subjected to harassment by her husband either for money or otherwise. 8. These circumstances would themselves show that the second respondent and her husband never lived with the brothers of the first petitioner. Not only this, nothing is brought on record to show that even if the alleged dowry demand or demand for properties of the first petitioner are met by the second respondent or her parents, petitioners 2 to 4 herein can claim any share in the dowry or properties. This Court in somewhat similar circumstances in SHAIK KAREEMULLAH vs. STATE OF A.P.[1] pointed out that where it is not shown that the relatives of the husband would stand to gain or get a share in the additional dowry which may be demanded and paid and where the allegations against them are omnibus the proceedings against them (i.e., the said relatives) should be quashed. This principle equally applies to this case also as petitioners 2 to 4 are brothers of the first petitioner and they are living at different places. 9. Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary, however, pointed out that the charge sheet discloses an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC also i.e. criminal breach of trust and that the second respondent’s parents gave cash and other presents or articles to the entire family of the first petitioner and consequently going by this allegation petitioners 2 to 4 who are brothers of the first petitioner should also be held responsible for criminal breach of trust of the said money and articles. This contention, in my opinion, is far fetched. The allegations in the complaint and even the allegations in the charge sheet and also the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the de facto complainant are omnibus and vague and they do not show any particulars with regard to the above allegation. In these circumstances it is difficult to accept the said contention of Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the point is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4 and this petition in so far as they are concerned is allowed and the proceedings against them in C.C.No.302 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District are quashed. So far as the first petitioner/ husband of the second respondent is concerned this petition is dismissed. 11. Sri S.R.Sanku then pointed out that the whole investigation made by Undrajavaram police is totally without jurisdiction and that the JFCM Court had also no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and made this a ground for quashing said case even against the first petitioner. It is very difficult to accept this contention in these proceedings now. It is the version of the second respondent that they lived at various places including the place which is within the jurisdiction of the JFCM Court. This matter requires a careful examination and for that purpose recording of evidence may also be necessary and as hence I do not propose to go into that contention and that contention in this petition is rejected. It is open for the first petitioner to raise that contention before the JFCM Court where the case is pending. 12. Parting with the matter it is however made clear that this order shall not be understood to place any fetters on the Court trying the said case from proceeding against the petitioners 2 to 4 herein under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if that is warranted at a later stage. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 7th April 2011 CVRK [1] 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP)