HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4389 OF 2009 DATE: 26.08.2010 Between: Rayi Tata Rao and 4 others …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4389 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 IPC in Crime No.117 of 2009 of Chilakalapudi Police Station. A-1 is husband of the defacto- complainant/2nd respondent. A-2 is mother, A-3 is younger brother and A-4 is married sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. There is no dispute about relationship between the 2nd respondent and A-1. There is also no dispute as per private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent which was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, that on 14.06.2006 the 2nd respondent gave report to the Chilakalapudi Police against the accused for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and that there was counselling between her and A-1 in the police station. According to the 2nd respondent, in the counselling, the accused agreed to look after her well without any harassment if she joined with him or in the alternative agreed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- towards return of dowry besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and that some papers were also prepared and signatures of the 2nd respondent were obtained to that effect. According to the 2nd respondent, she wanted to lead life with A-1 and went to A-1’s house and found to her surprise that A-1 was leading family life with another wife by name Kamala. It is alleged that all the accused again harassed her by beating her and by demanding to bring additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and therefore, she left the marital home and went to her parents house in April, 2007 and filed M.C.No.13 of 2007 for maintenance. It is further alleged that after receipt of notice in the maintenance case, all the accused came to the 2nd respondent’s parents house on 06.06.2009 at about 7.00 p.m under the guise of mediation and beat her in the presence of elders indiscriminately demanding her to not press the maintenance case and to give divorce and left the house by threatening her not to join A-1. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there was no reunion between A-1 and the 2nd respondent after the compromise in Chilakalapudi Police Station in the year 2006 and that on the date of compromise A-1 promised to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the 2nd respondent and that both the parties agreed that the 2nd respondent should file a divorce case after two years, in which case A-1 should become exparte. It is further contended that subsequently the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid in two instalments of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and that because of the same interim maintenance application was dismissed by the Magistrate. The allegations whether the 2nd respondent joined A-1 subsequent to the compromise or not and whether there was payment of total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by A-1 to the 2nd respondent, are all questions of fact which this court cannot go into and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-1 is a resident of Khammam and that A-2 and A-3 are residents of Narsaraopet and that A- 4 and A-5 are residents of Tadepalligudem and that therefore, there is no question of all the persons joining together to harass the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that A-3 is a student and that A-4 is a married sister living away from the family of A-1 to A-3. Out of all the accused, A-2 and A-3 being mother and brother of A-1, they are near relations of A-1 and there may be possibility of they participating in the offence along with A-1. But, A-4 is a married sister living away from her parents and brothers and residing with her husband at Tadepalligudem. A-5 has absolutely no interest in the family affairs of A- 1 to A-3, except his relationship through A-4. This court is of the opinion that though A-4 is a married sister living separately from the family, A- 4 and A-5 were unnecessarily impleaded as co-accused with ulterior motive as a measure of counter harassment to all the family members. There are no specific overt-acts against A-4 and A-5 as against the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that registration of the case against A-4 and A-5 is an abuse of process of law. 4. In the result, the petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are concerned; and the petition is partly allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.117 of 2009 of Chilakalapudi Police Station in so far as the petitioners 4 and 5/A-4 and A-5 are concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4389 OF 2009 Date: 26.08.2010 Gk.