IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that for adding accused in dowry cases, specific allegations must be made; general accusations are insufficient to proceed.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2018 in C.C.No.116 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli was allowed by the learned Magistrate permitting the prosecution to add the petitioners herein as accused in the main C.C.

2. Initially, basing on the complaint given by the defacto complainant i.e. P.Vani against her husband i.e. P.Anand and her inlaws i.e. the petitioners herein, a case in Cr.No.13 of 2014 of Madanapalli Taluk Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and a charge sheet was also filed vide C.C.No.116 of 2014.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the accused was performed on 03.06.2013 at Aryavysya Kalyanamandapam, CTM Village & Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal in the presence of their elders. At the time of marriage, the parents of defacto complainant presented cash of Rs.50,000/-, 70 grams of gold and has spent Rs.3,00,000/- for marriage expenses. After marriage, the defacto complainant went along with accused to Hyderabad and lived happily for two months. After two months, the accused and her inlaws started harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and the matter was informed to the parents of defacto complainant, who pacified the matter. On 12.01.2014 at about 8.00 a.m., all the accused came to the house of LW2, abused in filthy language and beat them. Basing on the report give by the defacto complainant, a case was registered against all the accused.

4. After recording the version of Lws 4 to 6, the prosecution found that no offence has been taken place as alleged by the defacto complainant on 12.01.2014 and after recording the statements of independent witnesses i.e. Lws 7 to 10, it is found that no offence has been made by accused Nos.2 to 4/petitioners herein. Hence, their names were deleted and charge sheet was filed only against the accused No.1.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, a case was taken on file as C.C.No.116 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and during the course of pendency of the said case, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add the proposed accused No.2 to 4 as accused in the main case and the same was allowed.

6. The case of the petitioners herein is that, the petitioners are innocents and falsely implicated in the above case. After deleting the petitioners? names, the prosecution filed a charge sheet. Though, the defacto complainant received notice, but did not choose to file any protest petition. In fact, the 1st petitioner herein filed a complaint in C.C.No.911 of 2015 before the learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against the 1st respondent herein and her parents. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The police, after conducting thorough investigation and basing on the statements of independent witnesses, had deleted the names of the petitioners herein from the case. Now, after lapse of nearly 4 ½ years, only in order to harass the petitioners, the prosecution filed a petition to implead them as accused.

Therefore, requested this Court to allow the petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 1st respondent.

9. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether t