THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.7321/2007, 6262/2009 and 766/2010 Dt.20-1-2011 Crl.P.No.7321/2007 Anakala Rama Devi ..Petitioner/A-4 V. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.7321/2007, 6262/2009 and 766/2010 COMMON ORDER These three criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by A-4 to A-5, respectively, in Crime No.122/2007 of Kanigiri Police station, which is the subject matter of CC No.227/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, are filed to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the said case. The second respondent, who is the defacto complainant, is the wife of A-1- Chirra Brahma Reddy. A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. A-4 is the elder sister of A-1. A-5 is the husband of A-4. A-6 is the maternal uncle of A- 1. The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) while working as Software Engineer in New Jersey, United States of America, A-1 who was also working as Software Engineer asked the complainant to marry him. On the advise of L.W.1, the parents of A-1 ie., A-2 and A-3 consulted the parents of L.W.1 and fixed the marriage of L.W.1 with A-1. Their marriage was performed at Kandukur village. According to the complainant, at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.6 ½ lakhs as dowry to A-1 and presented 100 sovereigns of gold to A-1 and L.W.1. A-2 to A-4, who are not willing to the marriage and who have agreed only with the pressure of A-1, harassed L.W.1 during her stay at Kandukur from 8-3-2007 to 18-3-2007. She did not tolerate the words of A-2 to A-4. Later, she along with A-1 went to USA and led marital life happily for some period, where she got pregnancy. About three months prior to the date of the complaint, L.W.1 witnessed a photograph of woman and asked A-1, who told her that she is the daughter of A-5 and if he marries her he would have got a dowry of Rs. 60,00,000/-. On feeding the words of A-2 to A-4, A-1 changed his mind and started to harass her physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.60,00,000/- without giving sufficient food to L.W.1. On coming to know of the harassment, the parents of L.W.1 requested A-1 to look after well her daughter, L.W.1. A-1 turned a deaf ear and continued to harass her. L.W.1 returned to India to her parent’s house at Kanigiri. L.Ws.2 to 4 went to Kanigiri and tried to convince A-2 to A-4 to settle the issue by admonishing A-1. But as there is no response from them, she filed the complaint before the Station House Officer, Kanigiri Police Station. The police after conducting investigation laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 only by deleting the names of A-5 and A-6. On a protest petition being filed by the defacto-complainant, the matter was referred to the police, who filed additional charge sheet against A-5 and A-6 also. A reading of the complaint would not disclose any offence committed by A-4, except the allegation that she along with her parents discussed the matter with A-1 secretly and expressed their displeasure of A-1 marring the defacto complainant. In the initial complaint, there is no allegation against A-5 about harassment meted out to L.W.1, but on a protest petition filed and when the matter was referred, the police filed additional charge sheet, wherein it was stated in the month of July, 2007, while L.W.1 was in America A-5 came to the house of L.W.1 and then A-1 started to abuse L.W.1 that if A-1 marries his uncle’s daughter Rama Devi, he would have got Rs.60,00,000/- as dowry and while her husband was abusing her, A-5 was also present there and informed her that they had already warned their brother-in-law ie., her husband not to marry her but he put deaf ear to their words and they have also informed her husband that he can get Rs.60,00,000/- if he marries another lady. Further A-5 demanded L.W.1 to inform her father to give Rs.60 lakhs as dowry to A-1. A-5 abused L.W.1’s father. When L.W.1 intervened and questioned A-1 as to why he maintained silence while his brother-in-law was abusing her, then A-1 supported his brother-in-law-A-5 by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.60 lakhs and threatened her if she fails to bring additional dowry, they would kill her. A-5 slapped her and A-1 caught hold of her tuft and beat her. A-5 informed A-1 in her presence that A-1 has to give one hour time to her, so that she can made a phone call to her father. At that time, A-1 and A-5 leaked the gas by keeping her in the house and by locking the house and went away. In the initial statement made by the complainant, she stated that on 9-6-2007 she returned to India and staying with her parents. Thus, there is no possibility of A-5 demanding dowry and harassing her and abusing in filthy language in the month of July, 2007 when she was in America. This is nothing but an improvement to falsely implicate A-5 with the commission of the offence. In the entire complaint, there is no mention about the role played either by A-4 or her husband-A-5 in harassing L.W.1. Both of them, are admittedly, the residents of America and left for America even prior to the marriage of A-1 with the defacto complainant. A-4 was present in India when L.Ws.1 and 2 to 5 went to Kanigiri to convince A-2 to A-3 is only a false story to create a case against A-4. Therefore, continuing the proceedings initiated against A-4 and A-5 is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings initiated against A-4 and A-5 are liable to be quashed. Entire allegation levelled against A-6 is that he used to telephone to the complainant for payment of additional dowry and threatened that if she fails to pay the same she would agree to the marriage of A-1 with his daughter, Rama Devi. In view of the same, the complainant has to be given an opportunity to prove the harassment meted out to her by A6, and therefore the proceedings initiated against A-6 cannot be quashed. In the result, Crl.P.No.766/2010 is accordingly dismissed and Crl.P.Nos.7321/2007 and 6262/2009 are accordingly allowed. Consequently, proceedings initiated against A-4 and A-5 in CC No.227/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, are hereby quashed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.20-1-2011 kmr