HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7612 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is ﬁled by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.80 of 2007, pending on the ﬁle of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for oﬀences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘The Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners/A-1 to A-7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondents-State. 3. The Petitioners herein are A-1 to A-7 in the said case; ﬁrst petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant, second petitioner is the mother-in-law, petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters of the ﬁrst Petitioner, petitioners 6 and 7 are the brothers of the ﬁrst petitioner. As seen from the allegations made by the second respondent, the marriage of the ﬁrst petitioner and the second respondent was solemnized on 23-03-2000 at Hyderabad. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of second respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash as dowry and Rs.10,000/- for clothes, 18 tulas of gold, silver ornaments, Bajaj Scooter, costly furniture, bed and bedding, utensils etc., It is alleged that all the Petitioners used to harass the second respondent demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and when the ﬁrst petitioner was dancing to the tunes of the other petitioners, they used to treat the second respondent as the maid-servant and failed to provide basic requirements such as food and medicines to her. They forcibly got aborted the pregnancy of the second respondent alleging that if a child is borne to the ﬁrst petitioner, they would not get love and aﬀection from the ﬁrst petitioner. Thus, as far as the allegations made against the Petitioners in the charge sheet and in the statement of second respondent go to show that omnibus allegations have been made. But, however in the counter ﬁled by the second respondent in O.P. No.755 of 2005, on the ﬁle of Family Court Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad specific allegations have been made against the Petitioners 6 and 7. When the second respondent gave evidence before the Family Court Judge as RW.1 speciﬁc allegations have been made against the petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 6 and sisters of the ﬁrst Petitioner. Therefore, as far as the Petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 6 are concerned speciﬁc allegations have been made by the de-facto complainant in subsequent proceedings. Even in a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Harshendra Kumar. D Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc[1] the Apex Court held as follows : “It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents – which are beyond suspicion or doubt – placed by accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial Court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have signiﬁcant bearing on the matter at Prima facie stage”. 4. In view of the same, I am of the view that since specific allegations have been made against the Petitioners 1, 2, and 6, the proceedings cannot be quashed in respect of those petitioners but, the proceedings have to be quashed in respect of the Petitioners 3, 4, 5 and 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, in part, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners 3, 4, 5 and 7. However, the proceedings may go on against the Petitioners 1, 2 and 6. It is further observed that the second petitioner is aged about 75 years, her presence before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates on which her presence is insisted by the lower Court. The observations, if any, made by this Court should not be taken into consideration by the trial Court while disposing of the Calender Case No.80 of 2007. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 08-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 113 CRIMINAL PETITION No7612 of 2008 Date:08-12-2011 DSH. [1] 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 848 (SC)