ORDER :

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.217 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner.

2. A case in Crime No.68 of 2014 of V. Kota Police Station was registered against the petitioners/A2 to A7 and also A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.68 of 2014 of V.Kota Police Station.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant is a resident of Ramapuram Village, V.Kota Mandal. The complainant got five children and his elder daughter G.K.Uma–L.W.2 got married with one N.J.Krishnamurthy/A1, who is none other than his elder sister’s son. At the time of fixation, he gave Rs.1,00,000/-and 250 grams of gold jewels towards dowry to the accused. Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with one son. Later the accused harassed wife physically and mentally. Due to the unbearable harassment of the accused, the defacto complainant has resorted in filing the complaint. Upon which, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2014 of V.Kota Police Station has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 only and the petitioners are deleted from the charge sheet, since the allegations are only directed against A1. It is observed in the charge sheet that all the petitioners herein are residing elsewhere. Against the deletion of the petitioners names, defacto complainant filed a Protest Petition in C.F.R. No.594 of 2016. By order dated 12.06.2018, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners, by examining the defacto complainant and other witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations as true, no offence under Section 498A of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is attracted as against the petitioners for the reason that there is no specific accusation against any of the petitioners herein. He also further submitted that all the accusations are directed against A1.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial and it is a premature stage and this Court is not expected to decide the disputed questions of fact in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the police after investigation deleted the names of the petitioners herein for the reason that all the petitioners are residing elsewhere and they are no way connected to the said offences.

8. Perused the record.

9. Admittedly, a perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the accused harassed the defacto complainant by beating her on daily basis. By virtue of the same, her health had deteriorated further. Unable to bear the harassment, she resorted to file the complaint against her husband and relatives of the husband. Police, after conducting investigation, came to a conclusion that the allegations are made against A1 only, and in respect of the petitioners herein, since they are residing elsewhere, they are no way connected to the family of the accused and the defacto complainant. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant resorted in filing a Protest Petition, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same against the petitioners also. The sworn statement of the defacto complainant in the Protest Petition goes to show that she made an allegation for the first time that all the accused beat the defacto complainant and harassed her. Except that statement that has been made at a belated stage stating that all the accused have beaten her on one occasion, there is no other allegations that has been made again