1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners A-3 to A-5 in C.C.No.168 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the Criminal Petition are as follows:-

Marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 22.02.2002 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Yeeraguntla; that at the time of marriage, mother of the de facto complainant presented Rs. 2.5 lakhs of cash and 20 tulas of gold towards dowry to A-1; that after the marriage, A-1 to A-5 looked after the de facto complainant well for some time; that later, the accused started harassing the de facto complainant mentally and physically, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her mother to purchase a house plot; that A-1 suspected the character of the de facto complainant whenever she talked to others and that she was necked out from the house. Later, she lodged a complaint with the Police.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-A-3 to A-5 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not residing in the matrimonial home of A-1 and the de facto complainant and they are residing far away from the place of A-1 and the de facto complainant; that an omnibus allegation is levelled against the petitioners stating that they harassed the de facto complainant demanding to bring additional dowry. He further contended that the date of demand of additional dowry and the place of demand have not been stated in the complaint and therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of the Court.

5. It is to be noticed that the entire investigation into the case is completed and the Police filed the charge sheet. At this stage, if the un-controverted allegations in the charge sheet and statements of witnesses make out the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners, quashing of the said C.C. does not arise.

6. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A I.P.C., reads as under:-

"Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

From the above explanation, it is clear that any unlawful demand made by the husband or relative of the husband is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC.

7. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with A-1 and A-2 harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry so as to the purchase a house plot and as, the de facto complainant was unable to meet their demand, she was sent to her mother's place. Therefore, it is clear that an unlawful demand for additional dowry was made by the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012 AIR SCW 5692, wherein it is held as under:-

"We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geetha Mehrotar and Ramji Mehrtra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently, the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed."

In the above decision, there is no allegation against