IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4991 of 2008 DATE:23.07.2010 Between: M.V.Narsimha Reddy and others …… Petitioners And: Smt.Komareddy Ariptha and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4991 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3/A-2 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1. A-1 did not join in this petition as one of the petitioners. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 is brother-in-law of A-1, he being husband of A-1’s sister. A-1 to A-3 are residents of Nagole whereas A-4 is a resident of Safilguda in Neredmet. Previously the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant gave report to the police alleging dowry harassment and it was registered as case in Crime No.632/2006 by the Kushaiguda Police. Subsequently the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on 30.11.2006. The present allegations are subsequent to 30.11.2006. It is alleged that the accused asked the defacto-complainant to bring Rs.2,00,000/- for paying to Satyam Computers for getting job to A-1 and that parents of the defacto-complainant gave money and A-1 got job with salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and that subsequently A-1 turned into a sadist and never used to give single paise to the defacto-complainant and that he once spit on face of the defacto-complainant insulting her. It is further alleged that A-1 took another Rs.2,00,000/- from parents of the defacto-complainant without her consent and misappropriated the same and that when he was questioned, all the accused necked her out of the house. It is alleged in the previous case that A-1 used to come in drunken condition and demand additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- for starting a business. Thus, the entire allegations are only against A-1 and his family members. A-4 is not a family member of A-1, A-4 being husband of sister of A-1. He is residing in a different house from that of A-1 to A-3. No allegation of demanding additional dowry is made against A-4. No amount was entrusted to A-4. The alleged misappropriation is by A-1. Even for the alleged payment of dowry, A-4 is not a party. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of proceedings against A-4 would only amount to abuse of process of Court. 2) In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.511 of 2008 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in so far as the 3rd petitioner/A-4 is concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 KSH