IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.654 of 2009 DATE:05.08.2010 Between: Karri Manikyamba …… Petitioner And: Karri Aruna Kumari and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.654 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C in C.C. No.460 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada. A-2 is wife of A-1. The 1st respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of late Karri Raja Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar and A-1 were brothers. Allegations in the charge sheet are to the effect that late Ashok Kumar was owning five lorries along with the defacto- complainant and that after death of Ashok Kumar, A-1 took management of the said lorries on the pretext of giving male assistance and that A-1 sold away two lorries for Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.7,70,000/- respectively and obtained Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively as advance and executed agreements to that effect in favour of the purchasers. The only allegation against A-2 is that when the defacto-complainant questioned A-1 and A-2 about sale of two lorries, A-1 and A-2 rudely replied stating that they would sell away the lorries as per their wish and the defacto-complainant cannot do anything as her husband is no more; and that A-1 and A-2 also threatened the defacto-complainant saying that they would neck out her on to the road from the house if she raised any dispute and questioned their acts. In last lines of the charge sheet it is stated by the investigating officer that A-1 misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and cheated the defacto- complainant with the help of his wife A-2. Mere support given by A-2 to A-1 and utterances made by A-2 towards the defacto-complainant, would not drag her into the net for prosecuting her for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. There is neither entrustment of any lorries to A-2 nor management of any lorries by A-2 nor sale of any lorries by A-2. The above alleged illegal activities were by A-1 only, even as per the prosecution case. Therefore, impleading of A-2 in this case is only to harass A-2 and it cannot be permitted to do so in law. 2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.460 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 5, 2010 KSH