IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADE AT HYDERABAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Sanikommu Koti Reddy, S/o. Sambi Reddy, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculturist R/o. Gudibanda Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District & another. …. Petitioners/ Accused No. 1 & 2 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through Kodad Rural Police Station, Nalgondqa & another. … Respondent/Respondent 2. Sanikommu Saraswathi, W/o. Koti Reddy, aged 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o. H.NO. 1-7-158/1, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District . … Respondent/Defacto Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/ A1 and A2, who are husband and mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant are accused of offences punishable under section 498(A), 406 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No. 741/2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodad, Nalgonda District. There is no dispute about the relationship among the parties. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 24.04.1995. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.1,60,000/- and ten tolas of gold to the accused as Dowry and that A1 and A2 harassed the 2nd respondent for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that after the 2nd respondent gave birth to a female child, the accused continued their physical and mental harassment of the 2nd respondent on the ground that she gave birth to a female child. It is further alleged that A1 used to come house in drunken state and abuse her and beat her as the 2nd respondent refused to bring additional dowry. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent was driven away from the house. 2. The petitioners filed a copy of mutual divorce petition in O.P.No. 15/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Suryapet before this Court and contended that contents of the said mutual divorce petition are contrary to the allegations in the charge sheet and that after having obtained Ac.4.00 of land, the 2nd respondent came up with the present report to the police after a period of eight years. There is no dispute that there was no mutual divorce granted by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Suryapet in O.P.No. 15/2000 under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act as the parties did not appear before that Court on the first date of hearing which was fixed by that Court after six months of filing of the said petition. 3. It is contented by the petitioners’ Counsel that the 2nd respondent having signed the mutual divorce petition and presented before the Senior Civil Judge Court, cannot go back from the contents of the said petition. It is pointed out that in that petition, it was stated that Rs.1,60,000/- was given towards Pasupu Kunkuma to the 2nd respondent. At the same time, it should be noted that the 2nd respondent resiled from O.P.No. 15/2000 and did not reiterate the allegations before the Senior Civil Judge Court. The said petition for mutual divorce further reads that A1 should refund the said amount of Rs.1,60,000/- by way of landed property and that Ac.2.00 of wet land out of Sy.NO. 425/U of Ananthagiri Revenue village and Ac.1.10 cents of wet land in S.No. 425/U of the same village were given towards past and future maintenance of the 2nd respondent and her daughter. There is no allegation in the mutual divorce petition that the amount of Rs.1,60,000 was refunded by A1 to the 2nd respondent. Lands of Ac.2.00 and Ac.1.10 guntas were given to the 2nd respondent and her daughter towards maintenance, past and future. At any rate, allegations in the mutual divorce petition signed by the 2nd respondent as well as A1 stand as a piece of evidence to be appreciated by the Magistrate at the time of hearing of the case after trial or at the time of framing of charge, in case, the said document is produced before that Court. 4. Placing reliance on Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Supreme Court has taken note of tendency developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the wives in marital offences and that the Supreme Court observed that if the said tendency is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the prosecution case even as against the real culprits. The said observations were made by the Supreme Court in an appeal against conviction in dowry death case punishable under section 304-B IPC, where several relations of the husband were impleaded as accused persons. In the case on hand, only the husband and his mother are impleaded as accused persons and they figure as the petitioners herein. Having regard to the allegations in the report as well as in the charge sheet that dowry as well as gold was paid to the accused at the time of marriage and having regard to specific allegation that A1 and A2 harassed the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings even before trial. It is for the trial court to appreciate the entire evidence on record after full trial. 5. In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to consider the case on merits without being influenced by any observations made herein. -------------------------------------------------- SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 28.01.2011 Mjl/ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU Criminal petition No. 1101 of 2009 Dated : 28th day of January, 2011 Mjl/ysk [1] AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 (1)