IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6562 of 2009 Between: Potharaju Erraiah and others. … Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6562 of 2009 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 (for short, ‘A1 to A5’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.175 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Whereas the petitioners are A1 to A5, the respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.175 of 2008. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows: The de facto complainant married one Chandraprakash, who is the son of A1 and A2 and brother of A3 to A5, on 11.04.1998. At the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.3 lakhs in cash and 5 tulas of gold ornaments and so also Rs.30,000/- worth of household articles to A1 and A2. On 07.05.2007, the husband of the de facto complainant died in an accident (for short, “the deceased”) and during their wedlock, the de facto complainant was blessed with two children. The deceased used to look after Gym centre with the money provided by her father and subsequently he established two more Gym centres. Thereafter, A3 to A5 claimed share in the property without any manner of right and further the dowry and articles given to A1 and A2 were retained by them. Even though the husband of the de facto complainant during his lifetime and so also subsequently the de facto complainant demanded to return the dowry amount, gold ornaments etc., A1 and A2 refused to do so and on the other hand, A1 and A2 abused them in that context. Further, during the lifetime of the deceased, he purchased an extent of Ac.1.32 guntas of agricultural land at Dharmaraopeta and the same has been cultivated by A1 and A2. Later, on 28.09.2007, the de facto complainant and A3 went to the Cooperative Society Bank at Khanapuram and she collected Rs.50,000/- towards society insurance claim of her deceased husband and returned to the house. Thereafter, she kept her bag on a table and went into the kitchen of the house for preparing tea. In the meantime, A1 to A3 took away the amount of Rs.50,000/- from her bag and when the de facto complainant asked A1 to A3 about the said amount, they promised to keep the amount in fixed deposit in the name of her minor child Ammulu and having believed that she kept quiet, but they failed to keep up the promise and on the other hand they spent the amount for their personal use. When the de facto complainant demanded A1 to A3, they abused her proclaiming that she got no right to claim the amount. Further A1 to A3 not allowed her and her children to stay in the house and even not allowed her to perform the rituals of her deceased husband and therefore, she has been residing in the house of her parents. It is also alleged that A1 to A5 made her to suffer mentally and physically and subjected her to cruelty. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no specific allegations which constitute the alleged offence against A1 to A5 and the demand made for the property is only a civil dispute and in fact the de facto complainant has filed a suit for the return of dowry amount of Rs.3 lakhs before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, which was dismissed and hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has contended that the allegations made against A1 to A5 really constitute the alleged offences and are liable to be punished as per law, and there are no merits in the petition. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against A1 to A5, as prayed for? A perusal of the record shows that there are clear allegations against A1 to A3 with regard to the offences in question and there are only bald allegations against A4 and A5 in that context. Therefore, unless specific allegations are there against A4 and A5, it is not proper to prosecute them, which amounts to abuse of process of law. On the other hand, as there are specific allegations or sufficient material against A1 to A3, they are to be prosecuted accordingly. In the result, the petition is allowed so far as A4 and A5 are concerned and dismissed so far as A1 to A3 are concerned. At the request of the learned counsel for A1 to A3, the presence of A1 to A3 before the trial Court is dispensed with till the commencement of the trial, unless their presence is required otherwise. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.12.2011 ES