HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5683 of 2010 ORDER:- The two petitioners herein are A-4 and A-5 in the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.60 of 2010 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), to quash the said case against them. The offences alleged in the said case are those punishable under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The second respondent Smt. Gara Aruna Devi is the de facto complainant in the above case and she is the wife of the first accused Gara Srinivas (A-1). The second and third accused therein are parents of A-1 and the petitioners herein who are the fourth and fifth accused in the case are sister of A-1 and her husband. This petition was taken up for hearing on 18.07.2011 and the petitioners counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor were heard and on that day the counsel for the second respondent was absent. The matter was posted for pronouncement of judgment to 20.07.2011 expecting that the second respondent’s counsel would appear and argue. He however did not turn up on 20.07.2011 and the matter is posted today for pronouncement of judgment. Today the learned counsel for the second respondent has been heard and the matter is being disposed of. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that a perusal of the allegations in the complaint given to the police by Sri Telugu Venkata Ramana who is the father of the second respondent would show that there is only one allegation that these two petitioners also along with the other accused harassed the second respondent and her father and demanded additional dowry and except that there is no other specific allegation and the second respondent unnecessarily dragged them into the case and therefore the case against them should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offences mentioned in the case against these petitioners also and therefore the trial court should be allowed to go ahead with the case and decide the matter and that there are no grounds for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C by this court. 5. In the light of the rival contentions it has now to be seen whether there are grounds to quash the criminal case against these petitioners. 6. The respective cases of the parties and the contentions raised on their behalf have been set out supra. It may be noted that these two petitioners are shown in the charge sheet as residents of Visakhapatnam and the second petitioner is shown as Manager of United India Insurance Company at Visakhapatnam. The allegations made against these two petitioners in the charge sheet are that they both along with the other accused in the case harassed the de facto complainant and her parents for additional dowry. It should be noted here itself that the entire charge sheet allegations are directed against A-1 to A-3 and the whole grievance of the de facto complainant and her parents appears to be against A-1 to A-3 only. In the report dated 29.01.2010 given by the de facto complainant’s father to the police it is stated by him that his son-in-law and his parents i.e. A-1 to A-3 came to his house at Kakinada and demanded payment of additional dowry as a pre-condition for taking back the de facto complainant into the society of A-1. This apart a general allegation is made against these two petitioners also that they joined A-1 to A-3 in demanding additional dowry. This is the only allegation found against these petitioners. 7. It should be noted that the first petitioner’s age is shown as 40 years and the 5th petitioner’s age is shown as 51 years in the charge sheet and it is seen that both of them are living separately away from A-1 to A-3, though all are in Visakhapatnam. Nothing is made clear as to how these two petitioners would stand to gain from the additional dowry or property brought by the de facto complainant or how they would stand to gain even if the marriage of the de facto complainant and A-1 is broken. As observed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand[1], it appears that these two petitioners who are sister of A-1 and her husband who are living separately have been unnecessarily dragged into the case only to harass them. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the case against them has to be quashed. The point is accordingly decided in their favour and this petition is allowed. 8. Parting with the matter it is made clear that this order shall not be understood to preclude the trial court from proceeding against these petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C if that is warranted. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 21st July 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667