This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which were initiated against him and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 325 of IPC against A1, Section 498-A of IPC against A2 and A4 and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1, A2 and A4.

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as under:

The marriage between the respondent and the accused No.1 took place on 14.10.1989 in Bangalore and later at Tirumala in the year 1990. The love marriage at Bangalore was ratified by the parents at Tirumala. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two children, who were examined as LWs.3 and 4. At the time of marriage, the father of LW.1 is alleged to have given 100 tulas of gold, Rs.5,00,000/- to A1 and 1/3rd share in the property to LW.1. Both of them were doctors and stayed in Bangalore till 1993. After the birth of LW.3 in the year 1993, both of them shifted to Hyderabad but A1 was forcing her to come over to Bangalore to start a business. It is alleged that till 1997, A1 lost about 40 to 50 lakhs in his business and was pressurizing the respondent to get the said amount from her parents to recoup the business losses. It is alleged that the in-laws of the respondent were staying close to Bangalore and used to visit the said place regularly and make illegal demands. The second child was born in the year 1995. In the year 1998, A1 and the respondent went to Kerala to set up a business but A1 was idle most of the time. So she managed the family from her salary and with the financial support of her father. The amount sent from Hyderabad by her parents and the jewellery, which was with LW.1, was misappropriated by A1 for his personal use. Despite these obstacles, the respondent completed her medical course of PG and DNB, finally shifted herself to Hyderabad and was living with the support of her father, who was paying Rs.15,000/- per month. The allegations in the charge sheet further disclose that A2, who was staying in the house of LW.1, was misbehaving with LW.1 by touching her at objectionable places. A1 never cared about the attitude of his father in spite of it being brought to his notice. The harassment continued in the hands of A1 to A3 but she bore the same as two children were growing up. In the year 2002, A4 took Rs.5 lakhs from her father to start a business. The father of LW.1, being a doctor, also helped A1 by securing a PG seat in Kamineni and CDR hospitals but he showed no interest in studies and left to Nirmal. The respondent herein joined her children in a hostel and went to Coimbatore to do her fellowship. The rest of the complaint also deals with the nature and manner of harassment in the hands of A1, the threatening calls received by her on phone demanding shares in the property and threat of marrying another lady. Since 2006, A1 stopped visiting the house of LW.1 though he was staying in a hostel opposite to her house. On 07.01.2006 when the respondent went to the hostel with a request to join her atleast for the sake of children, he is alleged to have manhandled her, which resulted in a fracture of nose. Basing on these allegations, a report came to be lodged against A1 to A7 and the police after deleting the names of A3, A5 to A9 from the array of the accused filed the charge sheet only against A1, A2 and A4.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that even accepting the allegations in the charge sheet at their face value, no offence much less an offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out against the petitioner, who is the brother of A1 and residing at Shimoga in Karnataka State. He further submits that in the absence of any specific allegation in the charge sheet, continuation of proceedings against