The judgment established the need to scrutinize allegations in dowry harassment cases and prevent the abuse of process of the court, especially when vague and general accusations are made against the relatives of the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.363 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[for short 'IPC'] and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[for short 'D.P.Act'].

2. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2 to 4 in the above C.C and they are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are:

a. The marriage of the de facto complainant with Accused No.1 was performed on 21/4/2016 at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Both of them were previously married and got divorces and this is their second marriage. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the parents of the de facto complainant gave Rs.10.00 lakhs towards dowry, and presented 3 sovereigns of gold bracelet and one sovereign of gold ring to the accused. At the time of marriage, the de facto complainant was working at Chennai.

b. After the marriage, she joined with Accused No.1 at Bengaluru on 1/8/2016 and also joined in a job. After few days of marital life, Accused No.1 started harassing the de facto complainant both mentally and physically by abusing her in filthy language. Accused No.1 also used to abuse the parents of the de facto complainant as they kept her with them while her father was undergoing treatment for throat cancer. Accused No.1 used to beat the de facto complainant and left her at her parental home by demanding to bring the gold available in her parental home. Further, Accused No.1 used to send money to Accused Nos.2 to 4 and demand the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs from her parents. When the de facto complainant informed about the harassment of Accused No.1 to his parents and sister, instead of admonishing him, they also supported him.

c. On 11/1/2019 Accused No.1 dropped the de facto complainant at her parental home. On the eve of Sankranthi festival, Accused No.1 came to her parental home on 15/1/2019 and demanded to give additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs to him and Rs.1.00 lakhs to his sister. When the parents of the de facto complainant questioned his acts, Accused No.1 abused them indiscriminately. Having no other go, the de facto complainant lodged a report with Sattenapalli Police Station against Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.8 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against all the accused for the offences under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

4. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C on the following grounds:

a. Allegations made in the complaint are all false and concocted for the purpose of foisting a false case against the Petitioners, with a view to harass them.

b. No allegation is made out against the Petitioners to attract any offence much less the alleged offence. Even as per the allegations, Respondent No.2/de facto complainant never resided with the Petitioners herein.

c. Allegations mentioned in the complaint do not attract any offence and continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 would submit that there are no specific allegations against the