HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10281 OF 2010 DATE: 20.10.2010 BETWEEN: Eeda Salamma and another .. Petitioners And State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10281 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.20 of 2010 of Mahila Police Station, Kurnool, insofar as the petitioners/A2 and A3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The first petitioner is the mother of the husband of the second respondent. The second petitioner is his brother. Initially, the second respondent/de facto complainant, who is the wife of the first accused, lodged a report on 19.02.2010 to the District Legal Services Authority mentioning therein about harassing her physically and mentally suspecting her character. She alleged in the said report that her husband is in the habit of consuming liquor and demanding Rs.1,00,000/- from her mother. Subsequently, she gave a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station, Kurnool on 24.05.2010 apart from making certain allegations against her husband in the said report, she also stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 started demanding additional dowry and were harassing her. The allegations made against the petitioners are not specific. It is mentioned in vague terms and that they were also harassing her and were instigating their husband to demand her to get additional dowry. In the earlier report, there was no whisper against the petitioners even to the effect that they were instigating her husband to harass for additional dowry. The names of the petitioners have also not even mentioned in the first report. There is only three months gap between the first report and the second report. The second respondent and her husband are employees. As could be seen from the report she and her husband were residing separately. Therefore, the question of petitioners harassing the second respondent does not arise. It would appear obviously that on account of strained relationship with her husband, the second respondent had an afterthought to implicate these petitioners as accused. The way in which the petitioners are implicated subsequently by the second respondent as accused is nothing but abuse of process of law. For the foregoing reasons, all proceedings in Crime No.20 of 2010 of Mahila Police Station, Kurnool, insofar as the petitioners/A2 and A3 are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 20.10.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10281 OF 2010 DATE: 20.10.2011