THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10488 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A3 and A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A4 is sister of A1, who is husband of the victim/de facto complainant/2nd respondent. A3 is brother-in-law of A1. Though they are residents of different houses from that of A1, all are residents of Rayachoty. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 09.05.1996. Though there are allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, they are made against A1 only. Since A1 happened to be a person belonging to Muslim religion, his alleged second marriage with A10 may not attract liability under Section 494 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent narrated in her report and the Inspector of Police narrated in the charge sheet graphically about the harassment to which the 2nd respondent was alleged to have been subjected to by A1 on the instigation of A2 and A4. A2 is mother of A1. A1 and A2 are not figuring as petitioners herein. The alleged harassment includes by way of demand for additional dowry. But in the entire investigation proceedings, there was no participation of A3 in any offence, except in the alleged necking out of the 2nd respondent from the house by A1. All types of harassment of wife will not attract liability under Section 498-A I.P.C. Only the harassment mentioned in Clause-(a) and Clause-(b) of the explanation to that section becomes an offence thereunder. Since the 2nd respondent did not commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide etc., there is no application of Clause-(a) thereof in this case. In the alleged demand for additional dowry covered by Clause-(b) thereof, there was no participation by A3 in any manner. Having regard to the allegations in the entire record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for trial as against A4 and that there are no valid and legal allegations for any of the penal provisions as against A3. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.322 of 2009, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, insofar as the petitioner/A3 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in respect of the 2nd petitioner/A4. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:14.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10488 of 2009 Dt:14.12.2011 ysk