ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioner/Accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.463 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, are as follows:

(i) On 15.04.2012 the marriage of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) with Accused No.1 was solemnized in Sri Venkateswara Swamy vari Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam, Godugupeta, Machilipatnam. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) presented cash of Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and 4 sovereigns of gold to Accused No.1. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) came to her matrimonial home at Vijayawada. But, her happiness did not exist longer as her husband (A.1) who was in the habit of consuming alcohol subjected her to cruelty during night hours, used to abuse her in filthy language, and used to demand additional dowry. He also showed another girl’s photo in the cell phone and used to state that he would kill the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and marry the girl who was shown in the cell phone. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent came to the support of Accused No.1. The 2nd respondent was unable to stay in her matrimonial home. They used to demand additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and used to harass the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally to abort her pregnancy. She returned to her parental home and presented a report to the Police and the same was registered as F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2013 of Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There was marital discard between the 2nd respondent and her husband (A.1). Petitioner/Accused No.4 supported Accused No.1, in torturing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.4 would submit that the Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2013 against the husband of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and five others and during the course of investigation, the Police found that there was no evidence to prove the participation of Accused Nos.5 and 6, who are brothers-in-law of A.1, and their names were deleted. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was filed against Accused Nos.1 to 4 (the husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent) and numbered as C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate for First Class, Machilipatnam. During pendency of the said case, the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were compromised and Criminal Petition M.Ps were filed under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C to record the compromise and under Section 482 Cr.P.C to permit her to withdraw the non-compoundable offence and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 against Accused Nos.1 to 3, in Criminal Petition 14749 of 2016. Those criminal M.Ps were allowed and this Court quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3, dt.26.04.2017. It is further submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.4 either in the FIR or charge sheet, except the pleading that the petitioner/Accused No.4 supported Accused No.1 and participated in harassing the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is making efforts to involve other relations to take vengeance against them. Therefore the proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.4 are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that mere compromising between the defacto complainant and A.1 to A.3, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the p