HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4333 of 2009 Dated : 19.08.2009 Between : Vempally Vikram Goud & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4333 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Palukuru Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. The petitioners are the 4th and 5th accused in C.C.No.709 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, Nizamabad District, and they are facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with the husband and parents-in-law of the second respondent. Petitioners are the brother and sister of the husband of the second respondent respectively. The first information report in crime No.87 of 2008 of Kammarpalli Police Station of Nizamabad District was registered on the written complaint of the second respondent, in which, it was stated that the 5th accused harassed the second respondent two days after the traditional marriage of the second respondent with the first accused demanding the second respondent to take divorce to enable the first accused to get dowry of Rs.20 lakhs. The other allegations against the 5th accused in the earliest version were about her being a party to the second respondent being necked out from the marital home on 30.12.2008. The 4th accused was also stated to have harassed the second respondent. However, in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the Police, the second respondent appears to have stated that the 5th accused was married on 03.08.2008 and was harassing her whenever she was visiting her parents house, abusing her to have deprived her brother of more dowry due to marrying her. The statement of the second respondent also states about the second respondent being necked out from the marital home on 30.12.2008 by the parents-in-law along with the sister-in-law also. Of course, it was specifically stated as against the parents-in-law and the 5th accused that they were frequently abusing the second respondent apart from asking her to get out of the house. The statement of the father of the second respondent shows that till the marriage of the 5th accused, the parents-in-law did not say anything to the second accused and he has specified that after the marriage of the 5th accused, the parents-in-law and the 4th accused harassed the second respondent physically and mentally. Of course, an allegation was made that on 30.12.2008 the 5th accused was also a party to the second respondent being necked out from the house. The statements of the mother of the second respondent and other witnesses do not throw any further light on the facts in issue and it is seen from the charge sheet containing the result of the investigation by the statutory agency that the 5th accused was married on 03.08.2008 and that A.1 to A.4 staying in the same house were harassing the second respondent. The harassment by the 5th accused was alleged to be only during her visits and of course A.5 was stated to be present on 30.12.2008 when the second respondent was necked out of the house. The addresses of the accused given in the charge sheet clearly show that while A.1 to A.4 are residing in Kammarpally, the 5th accused is a resident of Bazar Kothur of Nandipet Mandal, obviously living with her husband. The petitioners claim that the 4th accused/first petitioner was prosecuting his Engineering course at Nizamabad during the relevant period while within a week after the marriage, the second petitioner left for Bangalore and is living with her husband, who is a permanent employee at Bangalore. The marriage of the 5th accused soon after the marriage of the second respondent with the first accused is admitted and the claim of the 5th accused that her husband is employed permanently at Bangalore and that she is living with her husband at Bangalore since marriage are not only in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events, but are also not conflicting with any material on record. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent to Crl.P.M.P.No.3911 of 2009, the second respondent attempted to claim that the 5th accused continued to stay with her parents for sometime planning to pursue further studies in Australia and the second respondent also claimed the 4th and 5th accused to be parties to the harassment. While exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court will not go into disputed questions of fact but it has to undoubtedly examine the facts and circumstances disclosed by the written report of the second respondent to the Police, the result of the investigation by the Police and the material collected during the investigation to arrive at the sustainability of the prosecution against the petitioners. The material referred to above, thus, clearly indicated that the 4th accused is also a resident of the same house along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and specific allegations were made about the physical and mental harassment of the second respondent by not only the parents-in-law and husband but also by the 4th accused. There is nothing on record to show that when the alleged offences had taken place, the 4th accused was pursuing his Engineering course at Nizamabad and not staying with A.1 to A.3. The address of the 4th accused by the time of investigation was the same as that of accused Nos.1 to 3 and, therefore, whether the 4th accused was a party to the alleged offence or not has to be established during the trial and cannot be concluded in this summary enquiry. However, so far as the 5th accused is concerned, when she was admittedly married soon after the marriage of the second respondent with the first accused and her husband is an employee at Bangalore permanently, it is natural and probable to believe that she is living with her husband. Even the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the Police including those of the second respondent and her parents clearly show that there was no mental or physical harassment till the marriage of the 5th accused and that thereafter the 5th accused was claimed to have indulged in harassment only during her visits to the matrimonial home of the second respondent. Such allegations are easy to make, but difficult to refute and there are no details of the dates and periods of visits by the 5th accused from Bangalore to the house of accused Nos.1 to 4. The alleged presence of the 5th accused on 30.12.2008 also cannot be straight away relied on without further details as to when the 5th accused went to her parents house during the relevant period. Insofar as the allegations against the 5th accused are concerned, what was alleged in the earliest written report to the Police leading to the registration of the crime is quite different from what was alleged in the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, insofar as the 5th accused is concerned, there appears no reasonable basis for assuming her participation in the alleged offences and therefore, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the further proceedings against her should be quashed in the interests of justice. In the result, the further proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, Nizamabad District, are quashed against the second petitioner/5th accused only. The criminal petition is allowed in part to that extent in respect of the second petitioner, while dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th August, 2009 SUR