HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3472 OF 2008 Dated 18-03-2011 Between: Thammineni ……..Appellants And: T.M Vijya Lakshmi Devi and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3472 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ananathapur. The petitioner was prosecuted along with 10 other accused for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations made against the present petitioner is that he instructed the accused No.1 to send L.W.1 to her parents’ house, so that she could get the flat registered in his name. He further pleads that he is not a close relative to the A.1 and he is only having business dealings with A.1 and he has nothing to do with the family life of the accused No.1 with L.W.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has pleaded that in the FIR, it is alleged that A-10 is the junior paternal-son of A.1 and they came to their house on 12.3.2007 from Vijayawada and abused A.1 stating that believing him they spent about Rs.80.00 lakhs for construction of the apartments by incurring debts and he further stated that when he is unable to beat his wife he cannot do any business and he also stated that unless L.W.1 sent out of their house, her brothers will not register the flat in his name. Then her father-in-law, mother-in- law and brother-in-law have beat her and kept her in a room for two days. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R, the investigation was conducted and finally charge sheet was filed only alleging that A.10 instructed the A.1 to send L.W.1 to her parents’ house, so that her brother can register the flat in the name of A.1. The petitioner’s counsel has pleaded that it is only a vague allegations made against the present petitioner and as such he cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498-A IPC as it is causing hardship to him as he is practicing as a Doctor at Vijayawada. The learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that even the Supreme Court held that the relations of the husband cannot be roped in on the ground that they are related to her husband and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others[1] wherein it was held: “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping inall relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.” The other decision relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is rendered in Neelu Chopra and another Bharti[2] wherein it was held: “In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” In the present case, it is alleged against the present petitioner that he is instigating the A.1 to send L.W.1 to her parents’ house. But it is not the case of the respondent No.1’s counsel that immediately on the said instructions of A.10, L.W.1 was sent to her parents’ house to coerce her brothers to register the flat. From the allegations made in F.I.R, it is understood that A.10 has spent an amount of Rs.80.00 lkahs for construction of flats by incurring debts believing the words of A.1 and as such he got anger against him and uttered those words stating that if he is in capable of beating his wife, he could not do his business and as per the said allegations, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the L.W.1 harassed her and kept her in a room for two days and since they were already accused in this case and vague allegations made against the present petitioner is with regard to instigate the A.1, I hold that it is not just and proper to continue the further proceedings against the petitioner as it would amount to mis-using of the Section 498-A IPC against a remote relative of the A.1. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the proceedings against him. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ananathapuram are quashed against the present petitioner herein. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:18.03.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3472 OF 2008 Dated 18-03-2011 Gk. [1] AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324(1) [2] (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184