IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2485 of 2009 Between: Kamalapuram Prasad @ Prasad Rao & 8 others … Petitioners/A.4 to A.12 And: Kondapogu Indiravathi & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2485 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 in CC No.68 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners are A.4 to A.12 in CC No.68 of 2009. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, basing on which the S.H.O., Badvel PS registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2008 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, police filed charge sheet only against A.1 to A.3 and deleted the names of the petitioiners-A.4 to A.12 from the charge sheet. The case was taken cognizance in CC No.220 of 2008 against A.1 to A.3. The first respondent filed a private complaint against all the petitioners before the learned Magistrate, who after recording sworn statement of the complainant, took the case on file against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and dismissed the complaint in respect of A.1 to A.3, as the police have already filed a charge sheet against them. 4. According to the prosecution, the first respondent was married to A.1 on 07.08.1993 and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave Rs.30,000/- cash and 10 tulas of gold to A.1. Some time after the marriage, accused started harassing the complainant, as she had no issues and demanding that she should bring two lakhs as additional dowry or otherwise they would perform another marriage to A.1. It is alleged that the in-laws used to take her salary every month and they were instigating A.1 to marry again. The first respondent also staged dharna in front of Porumamilla Church and she withdrew the same at the intervention of elders and the first respondent and A.1 lived together for some time. It is alleged that again the accused started harassing the first respondent and on the Christmas day of 2007, all the accused jointly demanded the first respondent to bring two lakhs and forcibly necked her out of the house. The complainant therefore went to her parents house at Badvel. The mediation by her parents also failed. It is further alleged that A.1 to A.12 went to the parents house of first respondent and abused her, her father and threatened to kill her. 5. The petitioners-A.4 to A.12 contend that they are living in different places in different districts and they have nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant and A.1. A.1 husband, A.2 mother and A.3 relation of A.1 and A.2, are facing prosecution in the case filed by the police in CC No.220 of 2008. The police after investigation have deleted the names of the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 from the charge sheet in CC No.220 of 2008 and therefore, the first respondent sought to prosecute them by way of private complaint which is taken cognizance in CC No.68 of 2009. 6. A perusal of the complaint in CC No.68 of 2009, does not disclose how the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 are related to A.1 nor the role played by them in the matrimonial dispute between A.1 and the first respondent. What all alleged in the complaint is that A.3 to A.12 used to come to the house of A.1 frequently. It is further alleged in the complaint that on the day of Christmas in 2007, all the accused got together and in one voice demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and necked the complainant from the house. Again it is alleged that on 03.02.2008 at 10 p.m. all the accused came to the house of the complainant and abused her and her father in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. It is not specified as to which of the accused came to the house of the complainant’s father on 03.02.2008 and threatened the complainant and her father as stated above. In the private complaint filed by the complainant, it is stated that though there is sufficient incriminating material against A.4 to A.12, the police have leveled charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 only. The alleged incriminating material against A.4 to A.12 is not narrated in the complaint nor placed before the Court. It is only in the sworn statement the complainant has referred to the names of the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 alleging that they used to visit the house and harassing her on the ground that she had no issues. It is stated that the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 are A.1’s brothers and sisters-in-law and sisters and brothers-in- law. Admittedly, the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 are all residing in different districts like Medak, Hyderabad and Kadapa. Neither the complaint nor the sworn statement of the complainant discloses any specific allegation against the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 nor attributes any specific overt acts to any of them pertaining to the alleged harassment of the complainant over a demand for additional dowry. The complaint and the sworn statement contains omnibus and vague allegation that all the accused, including the petitioners-A.4 to A.12, in one voice demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and all of them harassed the complainant and all of them necked her out of the house. 7. It is well settled that the prosecution launched against the persons without any specific allegation against them and without there being any overt acts attributed to them is unsustainable. Except a bold, vague and wild allegation that all the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 also demanded additional dowry and harassed the complainant on that account, the complaint and sworn statement did not disclose any specific allegation against them attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police have after due investigation filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 and deleted the names of the petitioners-A.4 to A.12, as there was no incriminating material gathered against them during the course of investigation. The conduct of the complainant in filing a private complaint against the petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of law, especially when she has not placed any incriminating material against the petitioners, except repeating the wild allegation that all the petitioners in one voice demanded additional dowry and all of them together harassed her. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 to A.12 in CC No.68 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.11.2010 bss