HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9780 of 2009 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this petition which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), is whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the criminal case C.C.No.125 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial court) as against the petitioners herein who are A- 6 to A-8 in the said case. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar police station, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet in the above case altogether against nine accused i.e. A-1 to A9 alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and also Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case arises out of Crime No.359 of 2008 of the said police station. The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the said case and she is the wife of A-1 therein. A-2 is mother of A-1 and A-3 to A-5 are brothers of A-1. The petitioners are A-6, A-7 and A-8 and they are the wives of A-3 to A-5. In other words, the petitioners are said to be co-sisters of the de facto complainant. 3. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the marriage of the de facto complainant and A-1 took place on 03.10.2000 in the County of Du Page State of Illinois and thereafter they were blessed with three children and thereafter she returned to India and started living in her in-laws house with her three daughters which is situated in Nizam Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. It is further alleged that, soon after the de facto complainant returned to India, A-2 to A-9 at the instigation of A-1 or themselves started harassing her for additional dowry and also subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and ill-treatment for other reasons. So far as these petitioners are concerned it is alleged in the charge sheet that they also humiliated the de facto complainant for not bringing additional dowry as demanded by A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-9 and harassed her during her stay with her daughters in her in-laws house. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners has argued that these petitioners who are co-sisters of the de facto complainant have nothing to do with the family life of herself and her husband and that they never harassed her and the de facto complainant unnecessarily dragged them into the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offences against these petitioners also relating to dowry harassment and humiliation and consequently there are no grounds to quash the case and the trial court should be allowed to go ahead with it. In view of the above rival contentions the point is now to be taken up. 5. It should be noted that in this criminal petition six grounds are urged for quashing the case in respect of these petitioners. However in none of the grounds, except taking a plea of total denial and pleading that the allegations against these petitioners and the case against them is false, no details are given in the pleadings or grounds as to how the case against them is false and what was the reason for falsely implicating them. It may be noted that in a quash petition the petitioners in their petition are expected to give cogent reasons showing as to how the allegations even if believed against them would not disclose any offence. Thus, to repeat, except mentioning in the grounds of the petition that the case against them is false nothing is explained as to how it is false. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn to the grounds in the course of arguments but he could not reply to the same. 6. It may be noted that in the charge sheet allegations these petitioners are said to have humiliated and harassed the de facto complainant for not bringing the additional dowry or money as demanded by the other accused in the case. The learned counsel for the second respondent filed copies of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the second respondent and other witnesses and they show that allegations are made against these petitioners also which disclose the offence relating to harassment. One argument which is advanced is that these petitioners are co-sisters of the de facto complainant and they too are in the same position as de facto complainant and therefore there was no reason for them to harass her. It is true that being the co-sisters or co-daughters-in-law of the de facto complainant they too stand in the same position as the de facto complainant. It may however be noted that allegations are made against these petitioners also and the grounds mentioned in this petition do not show as to how the said allegations do not disclose an offence. In the above circumstances and having regard to the allegations made in the charge sheet and in the copies of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses and having regard to the fact that the grounds in the petition do not contain any particulars except a bare denial, I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the case against these petitioners should be quashed. 7. Accordingly the relief for quashing the case is rejected. It shall however be open for these petitioners to file an application for discharge before the trial court raising all their pleas and the trial court may consider the same and dispose of the same on merits. 8. Parting with the matter, it is brought to my notice that since all the three petitioners are ladies they have their own problems in attending the trial court regularly and therefore their presence for every date of hearing should be dispensed with. In my opinion this request of the petitioners can be considered. Accordingly the presence of these three petitioners for every date of hearing before the trial court is dispensed with and they can be represented by their counsel. The trial court shall however have the discretion to order the presence of these petitioners as and when it considers necessary. 9. This petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 19th July 2011 CVRK