HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2244 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1085 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The Petitioners are A.2 and A.3 and the Respondent No.1 is the de-facto Complainant in the Calendar Case. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 4. The prosecution case is as follows:- The de-facto complainant got married with A.1 on 03.05.1995 at Tenali and later they were blessed with one female child on 06.05.1997. At the time of marriage the father of the de-facto complainant gave Rs.1 lakh cash, ten tulas gold and Rs.50,000/- towards other articles as per the demand of A.1 and in laws. Subsequent to the marriage, A.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh from her father for America tour. After six months he again demanded Rs.1 lakh. Later herself and A.1 went to London, where he subjected her to sleep in gents room and forced her to drink alcohol etc., and thus harassed that way later he sent her to India with a demand to provide another Rs.1 lakh threatening that otherwise he would give divorce to her and go for another marriage for more dowry. After she returned to India her parents went to her in-laws house and asked about her husband’s behaviour, but her in-laws also supported the demand of her husband, and abused them in filthy language and also stated that if their demands were not fulfilled they would perform another marriage to her husband. Later her husband returned to India. Further on 20.05.2007 at about 07.30 a.m., she went along with her elder sister and father and then her husband abused her and her father in filthy language and beat her and in the mean time as her father and sister intervened, he beat them also and threatened to kill her and her family members. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.2 and A.3 that the only allegation against the petitioners is that after the de-facto complainant returned to India her parents went to the house of accused and asked them about her husband’s behavior but her in- laws supported the demand of her husband and abused them in filthy language and also stated that if their demands were not fulfilled, they would perform another marriage to her husband. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the first respondent that the allegation made against A.2 and A.3 clearly provide that when the parents of the de-facto complainant went to their house and asked about the behavior of A.1, A.2 and A.3 supported the conduct of A.1 and also in that context abused the parents of the de-facto complainant in filthy language and also threatened that unless the demand was not met with they would perform another marriage to her husband which definitely attract the provisions under Section 498-A I.P.C and unless necessary trial is conducted, the complicity of A.2 and A.3 cannot be decided and there are no merits in the petition and accordingly it is to be dismissed. 7. Therefore it is to be considered as to (1) Whether there is no incriminating material prima facie to prosecute A.2 and A.3 in the case? and (2) Whether the proceedings initiated against them are to be quashed? “Section 498-A contemplates: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, cruelty means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand;” 8. In order to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it is relevant here that there should be harassment of the de-facto complainant with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in question or on account of his failure or any person to meet the demand. Section 498-A IPC is not applicable here because it is not a case of harassment of the de-facto complainant to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her limb or health. 9. It is pertinent to note here that there is no allegation of harassment of the de-facto complainant directly, for bringing additional dowry, from her parents-in-law (A.2 & A.3). There is also no allegation of subsequent harassment of the de-facto complainant on the ground that her parents failed to meet the demand made by A.2 and A.3. Further the allegation made against A.2 and A.3 is only bald in nature and it is not given as to when such incident took place. It is easy to make such allegations and unless there is prima facie material in that context, it is not desirable to prosecute the persons accused in cases like this. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the proceedings in the Calendar Case insofar as the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 are concerned can be quashed. 10. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 12-08-2011. Vjl