The importance of specific allegations in cases of matrimonial disputes and the caution against the misuse of Sec. 498-A IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur.

2. The petitioners are A.2 to A.7 in C.C.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur.

3. Heard Sri C.V.Mohana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners; Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

4. The facts in issue on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are that she is the wife of N.Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad. The petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are the parents-in-law, petitioners 3 and 4/A.4 and A.5 are the sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, petitioners 5 and 6/A.6 and A.7 are the respective husbands of 3rd and 4th petitioners. At the time of her marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards dowry. After the marriage, both the A.1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant resided in NVKR Towers, Brodipeta, Guntur and during their wedlock, she blessed with a daughter namely Manasvi. Approximately two months prior to the date of complaint i.e., on 24/2/2015, A.1 left the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her daughter and residing along with his parents at Eluru. It is stated that, A.1 beat and necked her out for two or three times and harassed her to bring additional dowry for which the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 also supported and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by making illegal demands of additional dowry. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.140 of 2015 was registered by the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against A.1, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and all the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offence. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet in the trial Court vide C.C.No.43 of 2016 and the said case is now pending trial before the trial Court. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 to quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the charge sheet is the replica of the F.I.R. The allegations in the report and 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are contradicting with each other. He would further submit that 161 Cr.P.C statements of independent witnesses i.e., L.Ws.5 and 6 is hearsay. No additional evidence has been collected against the petitioners during investigation. He would further submit that no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint either by the de facto complainant or by L.Ws.5 and 6. Further, he would submit that there is absolutely no independent evidence sought to be produced except the evidence of L.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbours and their evidence is nothing but hearsay. He would further submit that the material produced by the prosecution prima facie would not show that the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioners and the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. He would further submit that the family members of A.1 are roped in without any specific allegations leveled against them and that no case is made out against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding the commission of the aforesaid offence. Further, he would submit that th