HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6314 OF 2008 DATE.18-11-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 (For short, ‘A-2 to A-6’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in F.I.R. No.118 of 2008 of Madikonda P.S. pending on the file of the Court of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-2 to A-6, the Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 26-05-2002. A- 2 is the elder sister of A-1 and A-4 is her husband, A-3 is another elder sister of A-1 and A-5 is her husband and A-6 is the aunt of A-1. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in cash, 6 ½ tulas of gold and household utensils were given as dowry to A-1 and his parents. Thereafter, the parents of A-1 and A-2 to A-6 used to instigate A-1 to harass the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry and accordingly he used to beat and harass the de-facto complainant. A-2 to A-6 also used to abuse the de-facto complainant for bringing additional dowry. Due to that unbearable harassment, the de-facto complainant left the matrimonial house and left for her parent’s house. Thereafter, subsequently a mediation was conducted in the presence of their caste elders and then also A-1 expressed that he would take back her subject to bringing additional dowry only. Later, at the instance of elders and also the mother of the de-facto complainant, A-1 took back the de-facto complainant to lead their family life. Thereafter, she gave birth to a male child on 30-06-2004, following which A-1 suspected her character. However, due to further unbearable harassment of her by A-1 she went back to her parent’s house. Further, one year thereafter at the instance of elders she joined A-1 alone at Kazipet, Warangal district. But there A-1 took away all her ornaments and kicked her from the house, by reason of which, she again went back to her parent’s house and there she gave birth to their second child. Further, in the month of May, 2008 A-1 compromised in the matter and took her back again to lead family life. Further, on 27- 07-2008 the mother of A-1 died and A-1 to A-6 involved in selling her parents house without informing her and when she questioned about their highhanded act, A-2 to A-6 beat her on 18-08-2008 and also involved in sending her away from that house. Hence, A-1 to A-6 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. There is no representation on behalf of A-2 to A-6. As seen from the grounds of Criminal Petition it is their contention that no specific allegations are made against them except that they abused the de-facto complainant for additional dowry and on the other hand only omnibus allegations are made against A-2 to A-6 and in fact A-2 and A-3 who are the married sisters of A-1 are living separately along with their spouses and their aunt i.e. A-8 at different places and there is n o prima-facie case for prosecuting them for the alleged offences. Further, A-1 filed O.P. No.126/2007 against the de-facto complainant on the file of Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad for restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant also filed D.V.C. (SR) No.7458 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal, which were compromised with an understanding to live together peacefully but thereafter the de-facto complainant filed this case only to harass A-1 to A-6 and therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against A-2 to A-6. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings against A-2 to A-6? 6. There are specific allegations against A-2 to A-6 with regards to the harassment of the de-facto complainant though admittedly, A-2 to A-4 are living separately from A-1. When there are specific allegations of harassing the de-facto complainant, necessary trial is to be conducted to establish their complicity in the matter. Therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. 208 In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, however in the circumstances of the case, their presence before the trial Court is dispensed with till the date of commencement of trial. __________________​_______ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:18-11-2011. Dsh/Da. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6314 OF 2008 November-18-2011 DSH