IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5419 of 2009 DATE:29.10.2010 Between: Anisetty Krishna …… Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. By P.P. High Court, Hyderabad And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5419 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A-7 is accused of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.811 of 2007 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally along with six others. A-7 is elder brother of A-1 who is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. It is alleged in F.I.R by the 2nd respondent that all the accused did not disclose about A-1’s previous marriage with another woman and suppressing the same, they performed A-1’s marriage with her. A-7 being elder brother of A-1, had no legal obligation to disclose about any previous marriage of A-1 with another woman. Even as per F.I.R, the alleged previous marriage of A-1 with another woman ended in divorce. Therefore, the said fact will not amount to an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C in so far as the petitioner/A-7 is concerned. 2) Though in F.I.R it is alleged that A-1 to A-7 were harassing the 2nd respondent, in the charge sheet filed after investigation, the police did not find favour with those allegations. On the other hand, in the charge sheet, it is alleged that when the 2nd respondent returned from her parents’ house to Hyderabad, she found her house locked and that when she enquired A-7 about the same, A-7 informed her about A-1 going abroad and promising to arrange another family house for them after A-1 returned to India. There is no allegation in the charge sheet about A-7 also harassing the 2nd respondent for additional dowry along with A-1. Further, there is no allegation either in charge sheet or in F.I.R that the alleged dowry was paid to A-7 also. According to the allegations, dowry was given to A-1 only. In those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no basic ingredients required for the above offences appear in the record as against A-7 and that continuation of proceedings as against A-7 is nothing but abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.811 of 2007 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally in so far as the petitioner/A-7 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 29, 2010 KSH