IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4656 of 2009 DATE:10.02.2011 Between: K.Malleswaramma …… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4656 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-2 is mother of A-1 who is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant in C.C. No.780 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapur. Originally A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. A-3 is stated to be the alleged second wife of A-1. A- 4 is junior paternal uncle of A-1. It is alleged that all the accused harassed the 2nd respondent physically and mentally demanding her to get dowry from her parents and that when she expressed her inability of her parents to give any dowry she was necked out of their house. This Court in Crl.P.No.7412 of 2007 by order dated 13.02.2008 quashed charge sheet in this case (old C.C. No.734 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ananthapur) in so far as A-4 was concerned on the ground that he is not a family member. 2) Even as per allegations in F.I.R and also in the charge sheet, after marriage which took place on 29.06.2003, A-1 told the 2nd respondent that till marriage of his sisters, they would stay separately and shifted their residence to Ashok Nagar. They had one son. It is alleged that A-1 was addicted to drinking of alcohol and was returning to house in drunken state and was abusing her and beating her. When A-1 and the 2nd respondent were residing separately at Ashok Nagar, the question of A-2 joining A-1 in demanding additional dowry and in driving the 2nd respondent out of the family house, does not arise at all. It is evident that omnibus allegations were made against all the family members and relations, because A-1 is alleged to have married A-3 as his second wife. No specific allegation was made against the petitioner/A-2 who was residing separately from A-1 and the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, continuation of prosecution and criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 amounts to abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.780 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapur in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2011 ksh