IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.9936 of 2010 Between: Ali Hussain Shirazi & 3 others … Petitioners And: State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.9936 of 2010 ORDER: This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.32 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the 2nd respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners, alleging the offences under Sections 498-A and 420 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for investigation and report under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered it as FIR No.32 of 2010 and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A.2 to A.5 and A.1-husband of the 2nd respondent. The first petitioner-A.2 is the father, 2nd petitioner-A.3 is the mother, 3rd petitioner-A.4 is the brother and 4th petitioner-A.5 is the sister of A.1. 4. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 was performed on 22.12.2005 and at the time of the marriage, as per the demand of A.2 and A.3, her parents gave cash of Rs.70,000/- as dowry, besides 20 tulas of gold and jeehadi articles wroth Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused. The complainant further alleges that on 14.11.2007, she delivered a girl child, but A.1 or his parents did not come and see her and did not also take care of the complainant and her child. She further alleges that on 20.12.2009, A.2 to A.5 came to her parents’ house and demanded additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and tried to take away the child forcibly from the lap of the complainant. 6. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that the thrust of the allegations is only against A.1 and his parents-A.2 and A.3. The allegations pertaining to the ingredients of the alleged offences are made only against A.1 to A.3. The only allegation made against A.4 and A.5 is that they accompanied the parents of A.1 on 20.12.2009 where a demand for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs was made and an attempt was made to take away the child forcibly from the complainant. The 3rd petitioner-A.4 is stated to be the student and aged 26 years and 4th petitioner is the married sister of A.1 and resident of Dubai. Having regard to the fact that no specific allegations are made against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 and no overt acts are also attributed against them attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 is only an abuse of process of law. 7. It is obvious that the complainant while filing the case against her husband and in-laws has also impleaded A.4 and A.5 as they happened to be the other members of the family. In a catena of the decisions, and also in the recent decision in ‘Preethi Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand[1]’ the apex Court has deprecated the practice of impleading all the members of the family as accused in a case filed for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. As there is no incriminating material against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 warranting their prosecution for the alleged offences, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash further proceedings in CC No.32 of 2010 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, insofar as the petitioners 3 and 4 i.e., A.4 and A.6 are concerned and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings against the other accused including the petitioners 1 and 2-A.2 and A.3 however shall go on. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed in part in respect of the petitioners 3 and 4-A.4 and A.5 and the same is dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2-A.2 and A.3 are concerned. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.12.2010 bss [1] 2010 Cri.L.J. 4303