HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10072 OF 2009 Date: 28-09-2010 Between: Rehana and three others. --- Petitioners/A-4 to A- 7. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10072 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4/A-4 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, 1961, in C.C. No.434 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. A-1 to A-3 who are husband and parents-in-law of the second respondent/de-facto complainant are not parties to this petition. A-4 and A-5 are married sisters and A-6 and A-7 are younger brothers of A-1. A-7 is still in his teens. There is no dispute about the marriage between A-1 and the second respondent taking place at Nafeez Function Hall, Lalapet, Secunderabad on 03-12-2007, within the territorial jurisdiction of Malkajgiri Court. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the second respondent’s parents gave Rs.70,000/- in cash, Hero Honda Passion plus motor cycle, 3 ½ tolas of gold ornaments, 3 tolas of silver articles and other household articles towards dowry. Therefore, it cannot be said that Malkajgiri Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. During talks relating to dowry and receipt of dowry, younger members of the family and married sisters can have no participation. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination A-4 to A-7 can be said to have committed any offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Insofar as offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, omnibus allegations were made against A-1 to A-7 put together to the effect that they started beating and abusing the second respondent demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that on 22- 03-2007 at 20-00 hours, they necked the second respondent out of their house. The sisters who are A-4 and A-5 are not residents of the same house where A-1 to A-3 reside together. They are living with their respective husbands at different places. Younger brothers of A-1 could not have beat the second respondent in the presence of husband and parents-in-law of the second respondent. The allegations are intrinsically fallacious and cannot be believed. There are no specific overt acts alleged by the second respondent against A- 4 to A-7. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that prosecution of A-4 to A-7 is nothing short of abuse of process of law. The Courts have been discouraging en masse prosecution of all family members of the husband’s family for offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 3. Hence, the Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.434 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri insofar as petitioners 1 to 4/A-4 to A-7 are concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 28-09-2010. DSH