HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7525 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in CC No.677 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint to the police against petitioner-A.2 and 9 others, alleging the offences under sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on which the WPS CCS, Hyderabad registered a case in Cr.No.371 of 2006 and after investigation filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.10 for the above said offences and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.677 of 2007. 4. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 took place on 05.06.2002 and at the time of the marriage, as demanded by the accused, the complainant’s brother, who performed the marriage, as her father was no more, paid Rs.50,000/- cash and presented Hero Honda splendor motor cycle, four tulas of gold, furniture and house-hold articles to the accused. A.2 is stated to be spinster and A.3 is stated to be widow and they were residing under the same roof and A.4 to A.10 are the sisters of A.1 and their husbands and they were residing at different places, but used to visit the house of A.1 frequently. The complainant alleges that after birth of a girl child, the accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and subjected to physical and mental harassment over the said demand. It is further alleged that A.2 to A.10 threatened the complainant to give divorce and to perform another marriage for A.1 if their demand for additional dowry is not met. It is specifically alleged that on Karthika Pournami day, while the complainant was lighting the lamps in the evening, A.1 to A.3 forcibly thrashed her on the ground and did not allow her to lighten the lamps and abused her in filthy language and on the instigation of A.2 and A.3, A.1 mercilessly beat the complainant, resulting in injuries and she was forcibly necked out of the house along with her child at 9 p.m. It is further alleged that even while she was taking shelter in her brother’s house, accused were visiting the said place and reiterating their demand for additional dowry or to give divorce to A.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except making omnibus and general allegation of harassment and ill treatment, no specific allegation is made against the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would disclose that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner-A.2 and another sister-A.3 to the effect that they joined hands with A.1 in physically assaulting the complainant in the course of the harassment and ill-treatment in connection with demand for additional dowry and ultimately necking her out of the house. Petitioner-A.2 at that time was stated to be a spinster and A.3 a widow and both of them were alleged to be staying in the house of A.1 under the same roof. The other accused A.4 to A.10 were residing elsewhere. The case of the petitioner-A.2 would therefore stand on a different footing, as she was stated to be residing in the same house along with A.1 and taking part physically in the alleged acts of harassment and ill-treatment. It is further alleged that A.1 to A.3 have thrashed the complainant and on the instigation of A.2 and A.3, A.1 beat her mercilessly, resulting in injuries to the complainant on the evening of karthika pournami and necked her out of the house at that night. Apart from the offences under section 498-A IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC also. 7. In the circumstances and in view of the specific allegations made against the petitioner-A.2 and specific overt acts attributed to her, prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, it is considered not a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in CC No.677 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.12.2011 bss