IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2008 of 2007 Between: M.Venkatesh and others. . .Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2008 of 2007 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused 1 to 6 (A-1 to A-6) for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.690 of 2006 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kurnool relating to Crime No.150 of 2006 of Kurnool II Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The victim/2nd respondent is wife of A-1. A-2 is mother, A-3 and A-4 are brothers and A-5 and A-6 are sisters of A-1. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place on 25.08.2002. It is alleged that parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.40,000/- cash towards dowry, 10 tolas of gold and also paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenditure to A-1 and that for some time A-1 and his family members looked after the 2nd respondent well and thereafter A-1 to A- 6 harassed the victim both physically and mentally for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened the victim with performance of another marriage to A-1 in case the demand is not complied with. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent’s father paid additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- to A-1 and that subsequently the accused sent away the victim to her brother demanding further additional dowry and that A-1 came there and beat the victim by catching hold of her hair and also threatened her with his intention to go for another marriage, if she failed to provide additional dowry. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that prosecution against all members of A-1’s family is malafide. He placed reliance on State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal[1] and contended that in so far as A-3 to A-6 are concerned, the prosecution is not justified and is tainted with oblique motive. A-1 is a police constable. A-3 and A-4 are also stated to be government servants. Simply because they are Government servants, they cannot have any special privilege over and above a common man. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that in F.I.R itself, the victim has clearly stated that other members of family used to come over to marital house, in which A-1 and the victim resided and used to instigate and support A-1 for demanding additional dowry and all of them are harassing her both mentally and physically for the sake of dowry. 4) Of course, it is for the lower Court to decide about truth of allegations made by the victim as against A-1 to A-6. At this stage I do not find any valid reasons to quash pending criminal case against any of the petitioners and prima facie I do not find that the prosecution is malafide even against A-3 to A-6. 5) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 24, 2009 KSH [1] 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335