THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6510 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are A1 to A7 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they arrayed in the calendar case. The prosecution case is as follows: A1 is the husband, A2 and A3 are the parents-in-law of the defacto complainant and A4 and A5 are the brothers of A1 and A6 is the brother of A3 and A7 is the wife of A6. The marriage of the defacto complainant with A1 was performed on 20.4.2007 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave Rs.7,00,000/- cash, motor cycle worth Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.2,00,000/- to A1 towards dowry and after three months of the marriage, A1 started harassing her to get the whole property transferred on his name, otherwise threatened to kill her brother. According to the defacto complainant, further A1 harassed and threatened her and her family members at the instigation of A2 to A7 and there is a threat to her life and her family members in the hands of A1 to A7. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A7 that the allegations are made only against A1 and bald allegations are made against A2 to A7 and a false case was foisted against them and the continuation of the proceedings against A1 to A7 would amount to abusing the process of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant has contended that there is prima facie case against A1 to A7 and therefore, it is necessary to conduct the trial of the case, otherwise, great injustice would be done to the defacto complainant. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in the calendar case are liable to be quashed or not. Having heard the counsel on either side and perused the record, I am of the view that no specific allegations are made against A2 to A7 and only bald allegations are made against them. It is very easy to make such allegations in a case of this nature. Even if the trial of the case is conducted insofar as A2 to A7 are concerned, no useful purpose would be served. In the judgment referred supra, the Supreme Court held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry and in cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and by mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths and a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths, which if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits and in their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. This observation holds good to the facts and circumstances of this case insofar as A2 to A7 are concerned. There is prima facie material insofar as A1 is concerned for prosecuting him in respect of the alleged offences. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed insofar as A2 to A7 are concerned and the proceedings in the calendar case against them are quashed and insofar as A1 is concerned, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 14-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6510 of 2008 14.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6510 of 2008 Date: 14th October, 2011 Between: Gugloth Gopi and others. .. Petitioner/A1 to A7 And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents [1] AIR 2000 SC 2324