HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4962 of 2​008 ORDER: Petitioners herein are some of the accused i.e., A-2, A-3, A- 6, A-7 & A-8 in the criminal case C.C.No.945 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (CMM). They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The offence alleged in the said case is the one punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. Thus the point is whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the above criminal case against the petitioners. 3. The 2nd respondent herein namely Smt Farhana Fatima is the wife of the 1st accused Abdul Kareem Aleem Siddique. Their marriage took place on 07.03.2002 at Hyderabad. A-4 Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddique and A-5 Ayesha Azeez Aleem are said to be the parents of A-1. A-3, A-6, A-7 and A-8 are said to be the maternal aunts of A-1, while A-2 is said to be husband of A-1. All of them are said to be residing in a locality called Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 4. It appears that by 04.10.2004 the relations between the 2nd respondent and her husband got strained because of the alleged dowry demands and cruelty meted out to her from her husband and his parents. Alleging the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint not only against her husband and his parents but also these petitioners before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court. That Court referred that complaint to Chilukalguda P.S., and the said police after investigating the matter filed charge sheet against the husband and parents-in-law of the second respondent and also these petitioners showing all of them as A1 to A8 and alleging against them an offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that admittedly petitioners 2 to 5 are maternal aunts of A.1 i.e., they are sisters of A.1’s mother while the 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner and that they have nothing to do with the alleged dowry demands made by A.1 and his parents and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. He also drew my attention to the allegations in the charge sheet and the contents of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police and argued that there is nothing against the petitioners and the police have mechanically filed charge sheet against them also at the instance of the 2nd respondent and her parents. He therefore consistent with the pleadings of the petitioners in this petition argued that the case against them should be quashed. He also pointed out that the husband and parents-in-law of the second respondent are now residing in United States of America (USA) and petitioners have been implicated unnecessarily on the assumption that the husband of the 2nd respondent and her parents-in-law would return to India at least for the sake of these petitioners while in fact petitioners have nothing to do with them or the offences alleged. The charge sheet also shows that the 2nd respondent’s husband and his parents are in USA. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police would abundantly show that the case against the present petitioners is also well-founded and therefore there are no grounds to interfere in the matter. In the light of the above contentions, the point is now taken up. 7. It may be noted that petitioners 2 to 5 are admittedly the maternal aunts of the husband of the 2nd respondent i.e., sisters of the 5th accused, while first petitioner is the husband of second petitioner. In the charge sheet and also in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent copies of which are made available, it will be found that only general allegations are made against these petitioners relating to alleged dowry demand or harassment meted out to the 2nd respondent in the house of her in-laws. 8. It is pointed out on behalf of the 2nd respondent that her in- laws and the petitioners herein lived in the same premises and when she joined her husband and in-laws initially in their house at Purani Haveli petitioners were also there and they too harassed her. It should be noted here that in the charge sheet the husband and in-laws of the 2nd respondent are stated to be living now in USA. It is also the version of the 2nd respondent that for sometime she stayed with her mother-in-law and later on she too left for USA forcing her to stay with the petitioners and at that time they harassed her. These are the allegations on which petitioners have been charge sheeted. 9. It may be noted that nothing is clear from the charge sheet or the statements of the 2nd respondent or her parents as to how these petitioners who happen to be the sisters of the mother of the husband of the 2nd respondent stand to gain from additional dowry if any paid to the 2nd respondent’s husband or his parents. One allegation made is that the parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent developed an idea to perform the marriage of their son with one of the daughters of their relatives i.e., one of the petitioners herein and therefore, they too indulged in harassment. This allegation is also vague though the parties are Mohammedans. To repeat nothing is clear in the allegations made against these petitioners as to how they stand to gain from any additional dowry or property which may be given to the husband of the 2nd respondent. 10. The only circumstance pointed out against the petitioners is that the petitioners and the in-laws of the 2nd respondent were residing in the same premises and therefore, they too joined the parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent in harassing her. In the charge sheet itself it should be noted that different house numbers have been given for the houses in which the petitioners are said to be residing and these are different from the numbers of houses of 2nd respondent’s parents-in-law. This itself shows that petitioners have their own houses. This is a circumstance which weighs against the 2nd respondent. To repeat, nothing is stated as to how the petitioners stand to gain from any property or cash or other valuables given by the parents of the 2nd respondent to her husband or his parents. This Court in somewhat similar circumstances in SHAIK KAREEMULLAH vs. STATE OF A.P.[1] pointed out that where it is not shown that the relatives of the husband would stand to gain or get a share in the additional dowry which may be demanded and paid and where the allegations against them are omnibus the proceedings against them (i.e., the said relatives) should be quashed. This principle aptly applies to this case also. 11. Nothing is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent to show that the allegations made against these petitioners in the case are sufficient to reject the case of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that they have been implicated in the case as 2nd respondent’s husband and her in- laws are in USA now cannot also be ruled out. In other words in my opinion the record in this case would show that it would be difficult to accept the 2nd respondent’s case against the petitioners as the record now stands. It is well settled that this is sufficient for this Court to intervene in the matter and quash the proceedings against them. 12. Accordingly the point is decided in favour of the petitioners and this petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against them in C.C.No.945 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is however made clear that this order shall not be understood to place any fetters on the Court trying the said case from proceeding against these petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if that is warranted at a later stage. ________________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 7th April 2011 INL/cvrk [1] 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP)