THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5654 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Kalikasu Subba Lakshmi & 2 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The Station House Officer & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5654 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A3 to A5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. in CC.No.34 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada along with two others. A1 is husband of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent. A2 is mother of A1. A3 and A5 are sisters of A2. A4 is son of A3. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 14.12.2006. It is alleged that parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.3,00,000/- towards ‘Pasupukunkuma’, Rs.1,00,000/- worth of gold and silver ornaments and Rs.25,000/- for clothes and other expenses at the time of marriage. The 2nd respondent joined her husband to lead conjugal life at his house at Machavaram. It is alleged that the accused demanded the 2nd respondent to get some more money from her parents and asked for a share in the property of her parents towards additional dowry and started harassing the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, A1 and A2 and the 2nd respondent left for U.S.A. (United States of America). It is alleged that even at U.S.A., A1 and A2 continued the harassment demanding additional dowry for investment in real estate business at Bangalore. A1 and A2 are not petitioners in this petition. It is further alleged that A1 to A5 harassed the victim for additional dowry both mentally and physically. 2. Placing reliance on PREETI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND[1], it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint and statements of witnesses and that impleding the petitioners 1 to 3 in the case under Section 498-A I.P.C. is nothing but abuse of process of law. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in large number of complaints and that the tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The Supreme Court quashed the complaint therein on the ground that there are no specific allegations against the appellants therein in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role to both the appellants. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it would be unfair to compel appellants therein to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. 3. In Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti[2], the Supreme Court observed that in order to launch a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the all and end of the matter and that what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing that offence. On facts, the Supreme Court found therein that the allegations were against the husband, who is no more and in those circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against aged parents of the husband against whom vague and general allegations were made. 4. In the case on hand, in the statements given by the 2nd respondent to the Police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. apart from narrating the incidents from the time of marriage against A1 and A2, it was specifically alleged that K.SubbaLakshmi (1st petitioner/A3) and her son Mohan (2nd petitioner/A4) and Y.Saraswathi(3rd petitioner/A5) beat her severely and plucked on her cheeks on the ground that she did not bring more dowry. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no dates or time are given in respect of the said allegations and therefore, those allegations cannot be termed as specific allegations. The offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is not one which happens on a particular day and a particular time. It is a continuous course of events from the date of marriage until the date of giving report or filing complaint. Therefore, when the events took place during the course of few years, one cannot expect to give date and time like any offence against human body or an offence against property under I.P.C. In view of the said specific allegations against A3 to A5 by the 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that the allegations against A3 to A5 are vague and general in nature. This is not a case like in Shaik Kusrouddin Vs. State of A.P.[3] wherein the allegations against the petitioners 4 to 9 therein were not specific but were only to the effect that they instigated the husband in making demand for dowry. In this case, the petitioners 1 to 3/A3 to A5 are stated to have made physical attack on the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Therefore, the above reported decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have no application to facts of the present case. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence on record, which is to be let in by both the parties during trial and come to a conclusion on facts. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 03.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5654 of 2009 DATED: 03.03.2011 ysk [1] (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 [2] 2010 (1) ALT(Crl.) 146 (SC) [3] 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 195 (AP)