IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9277 of 2009 Between: M. Venkateswara Rao & others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.M. Subhani Counsel for respondent No.1: Addl. Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri A. Bhuvana Sunder Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9277 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 4/A2 to A5 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is married sister of A1, who is husband of the second respondent/complainant. A1 is not a petitioner herein. Private complaint ﬁled by the second respondent was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Marriage of the second respondent with A1 took place on 18.02.2006 at Aryasamaj. It was a love marriage. Prior to it, the second respondent married another as her husband and subsequently took divorce from her ﬁrst husband through Court. The second respondent has one son through her ﬁrst husband. After marriage, A1 and the second respondent lived separately from the petitioners herein. It is alleged that after six months of the marriage, the second respondent and A1 joined the accused at Bharatnagar. It is alleged that the accused started harassing the second respondent physically and mentally for want of dowry from her parents and that when it was informed to her parents, they expressed their inability to meet the said demand and that all the accused demanded the second respondent to bring Rs.2 lakhs as dowry from her parents’ house and that when it was not met with by the second respondent, the accused beat her two or three times and abused her in ﬁlthy language and finally necked her out of the family house. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the second respondent in the divorce proceedings against her ﬁrst husband obtained huge money and house and thereafter married A1 with the oblique motive of extracting money from his family. But A1 married the second respondent knowing full well about her marital background and about she having a son through her divorced ﬁrst husband. It is contended that A4 and A5 are residents of Channai. A5 is husband of A4. It is further contended for the petitioners that the second respondent did not know even details of A2 to A4 and that even though A2 retired from Government service, he was shown as Government employee and that even though A3 was working as Typist in Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Development Corporation at Nizamabad and later transferred to Hyderabad, she was described as a housewife and that even though A4 and A5 are residents of Chennai, they were described as residents of Hyderabad. Incorrect description of A2 to A5 cannot be a ground now to absolve them of any liability in this case. Since A4 happens to be a married daughter, she lives with her husband and is not going to reside along with her parents in the family house. It is contended by the second respondent’s counsel that all the questions raised by the petitioners are relating to facts, which have to be dealt with by the investigating oﬃcer during investigation and thereafter by the trial Court and they cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But a reading of the allegations in the private complaint discloses that the allegations made against all the accused are omnibus in nature. No speciﬁc allegations are made against each of the accused and more particularly against A4 and A5, who are married daughter and son-in-law of A2 and A3. Since they are not jointly residing with other family members of A1, impleading of A4 and A5 in this case is nothing but mischievous and mala ﬁde and abuse of process of criminal law. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.392 of 2009 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station of Cyberabad, insofar as the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 and A5 are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 29.11.2011 ES