IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4842 of 2009 DATE:11.02.2011 Between: Mr.Poola Mohiuddin Basha and others …… Petitioners And State of A.P. rep. by P.P and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4842 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 7/A-1 to A-7 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.180 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant/victim. A-2 and a-3 are parents, A-4 and A-5 are brothers and A-6 is sister of A-1. A-7 is husband of A-6. There is no dispute about marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 on 13.07.1999. Simply because divorce notice was issued by A-1, which is prior to filing of the criminal case, it will not absolve the accused from criminal liability either under Section 498-A I.P.C or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which were stated to have been committed by them prior to the alleged divorce. The allegations that the 2nd respondent entered into house property of A-1 to A-3 and filed civil suit and obtained injunction against them, have no relevance in the present criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings. 2) It is alleged that at the time of marriage parents of the 2nd respondent gave dowry of 24 tolas of gold, Rs.60,000/- cash, house hold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-, clothes worth Rs.50,000/- and that after the 2nd respondent joined her in-laws at Proddatur, all the accused used to humiliate her as well as another daughter-in-law Farida with their talk. It is also alleged that there was demand for payment of additional dowry and also demand for transfer of house at Vempalle belonging to parents of the 2nd respondent in favour of A-1. These allegations, taken on their face value, do attract the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A-1 to A-3. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be subject matter of this criminal petition, as it would be a question of fact which has to be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial. 3) There are certain other allegations in the statement of the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent to the police to the affect that A-6 took her to a doctor when she was pregnant and an injection was administered due to which she suffered abortion. There is also allegation about internal harassment both physically and mentally, of the 2nd respondent at the instance of all the accused. But, for attracting liability under Section 498-A I.P.C, the allegations must relate to ‘cruelty’ defined in clause (a) or clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. This is not a case where the victim either committed suicide or suffered any grave injury to her limb etc., to attract clause (a). Further, this is not a case where there is harassment of the victim by A-4 to A-7 for the sake of any additional dowry or property. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that even if the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, F.I.R and other records are taken on their face value, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to make out any case of either Section 498-A I.P.C or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A-4 to A- 7. 4) In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.180 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District in so far as the petitioners 4 to 7/A-4 to A-7 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 11, 2011 ksh