THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6320 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1. Ghouse-Ur-Rahman S/o. Abdul Rehman Khan, R/o. H.No.17-8- 659/8/C/1, Shah Colony, Dabeerpura Railway Station, Hyderabad, and others. PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri R.A. Atchuthanandam Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioners, who were arrayed as A.2 to A.6 in C.C.No.478 of 2006 on the file of XXII Metropolitan (Mahila) Magistrate, Hyderabad, and facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’), filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated by the Second respondent, who is the wife of A.1, daughter-in-law of A.2, and sister-in-law of A.3 to A.6. The second respondent alleged to have filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. complaining that her marriage with A.1 was performed on 2.08.2001 as per the Muslim custom. It was alleged in the complaint that as per the demand made by A.1, the parents of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Ghoda Jhoda and 24 tolas gold jewellery i.e. fine necklace and Jahaz articles worth of Rs.3,00,000/- with a differed dower of Rs.40,001/- and two Dinar-e- Sharai. They also incurred a sum of Rs.500,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, A.1 started ill-treating the complainant. At paragraph 5 of the complaint, it was alleged that the mother of A.1 and A.3 to A.6, started ill-treating the complainant in each and every petty matter stating that she brought poor quality of Jahaz articles, she is not proper match to her son, and scolded and demanded her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry from her parents house or otherwise she should leave the house of A.1. However, it was stated that the mother of A.1 is no more. The only allegation made at paragraph 8 against A.3 to A.6 is that they never respected the complainant and used to scold her on petty matters and on the instigation of A.1, A.3 to A.6 demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents, and since she did not accede to their demand, they forced her to leave the house of A.1. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case after satisfying with the contents therein and issued summons to the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence the present criminal petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gaddam Balaraju v. S. Bala Mani[1], contended that the complaint is couched in, totally indefinite and vague language. Even if all the averments and accusations made in the complaint are taken as true on its face value, no case is made out against the petitioners. If the prosecution against the petitioners, which is fictitious, is allowed to be continued the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Further petitioner No.3, who was arrayed as A.4, is admittedly in Dubai and petitioners 4 and 5, who are the daughters of petitioner No.1, are residing with their husbands at separate places, and that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. Therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be continued and the same are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant contended that all the accused harassed the complainant and instigated A.1 to harass her. Once the Magistrate took complaint on file after satisfying with the contents therein, the complainant has to be given an opportunity to prove the harassment and additional dowry demanded by the petitioners as stated by her in para-8. The entire complaint discloses the accusation against A.1 but not against the other accused. The allegation that the petitioners, who are arrayed as A.2 to A.6 demanded additional dowry and forced the complainant to leave the house of A.1, prima facie constitutes offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Act for which they stood charged. If the entire complaint is taken on its face value, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and in that process forced the complainant to leave the house of A.1. Therefore, they cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act since they have not received any dowry, but A.1, who is the husband of the complainant, received the dowry. In view of the same, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3 of the Act cannot be sustained, and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, except the charge under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Act, the proceedings against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and Section 3 of the Act are quashed. On all the petitioners filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., that they would be represented by one petitioner, the Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for dispensing with their presence on all the dates of hearing except when their presence is required to answer the incriminating evidence adduced against them. The Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 5th August, 2010 Js. [1] 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 174 (A.P.)