HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6436 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – A-2, A-3 and A- 4, Mohd. Abdul Raheem, Atiya Sultana and Ishrath Sultana respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.190 of 2008 on the file of the Women’s Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The petitioners are father-in-law and sisters-in-law of respondent No.2 – de facto complainant, Smt.Shabana Azmi. 3. The allegations against the petitioners are that with their instigation, A-1, who is husband of the de facto complainant, harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry, he used to come to the house in drunken condition and beat her mercilessly with the help of the petitioners and she was necked out of her matrimonial house by them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 is an octogenarian and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are sisters-in-law, are married persons and they are residing separately. Further, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are aged about 52 and 45 years respectively, are working women and staying away and as such, they have no occasion to interfere in the family affairs of the de facto complainant. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the allegations against the petitioners that they instigated A-1 to harass the de facto complainant for additional dowry and beat her are false and baseless, as such, the complaint is false and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER[1] and NEELU CHOPRA & ANOTHER v. BHARTI [2]. 5. This case pertains to the year 2009. Both the counsel are unable to report as to the stage of the investigation as of now. 6. The marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 was performed in 1996 and the complaint is of 2008. A perusal of the private complaint preferred by the de facto complainant shows serious allegations against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to show any material from the record that the complaint is a false and there is no prima facie case against the petitioners. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be gone into at this stage. Moreover, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand since the facts therein are different, as there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. 7. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the relief as prayed for by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 13-10-2011 Stp It is possible that Police may have filed charge sheet. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not relevant to the facts of the case on hand. Since the petitioners - A- 2, A-3 and A-4 are charged with serious offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant the relief as prayed for. [1] AIR 2010 SC 3363 [2] (2009) 10 SCC 184