IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that vague allegations in dowry harassment cases do not warrant criminal proceedings against relatives, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner/accused No.4 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 324 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

2. The de-facto complainant/2nd respondent lodged a report before the concerned police on 05.10.2016, alleging that her husband along with his parents and sister harassed her both mentally and physically and subjected her to cruelty demanding additional dowry and also attributing infertility. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.198 of 2016 has been registered on the file of Maharanipeta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation revealed that the marriage of the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 took place on 04.06.2015 in the presence of elders from both sides and that the parents of the de facto complainant had paid Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and adorned her daughter with 50 tulas of gold and paid Rs.1 lakh towards Adapaduchu katnam and also presented articles worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused No.1 is a habitual drunkard and he developed an imaginary suspicion towards his wife's character since their marriage and has been thrashing her frequently and harassing her, attributing infertility for not conceiving a child since after one year of their marriage. The parents of accused No.1, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 supported him when he harassed the de-facto complainant. On 06.08.2016, accused No.4, who is the sister of accused No.1, came from Hyderabad and she also instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de-facto complainant. The investigation further revealed that on the night of 08.08.2016 at about 10.00 pm, accused No.1 severely beat the de-facto complainant and inflicted burn injury on her left hand and thrashed her head towards gas stove in the kitchen. On hearing her cries, their neighbor (L.W.8) came out and the de-facto complainant informed her about the situation. The brother of the de-facto complainant requested the neighbor to stay with his sister till his parents come. Then, accused No.1 left the defacto complainant alone in their flat and went to Flat No.402, where his parents reside. The parents of the de-facto complainant arrived and shifted the de-facto complainant to KGH for treatment. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet stating that accused No.1 is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits that the petitioner is a married woman and she does not reside along with accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant and that she has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that except making vague and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent submitted that truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner has to be decided during the course of trial and at this stage, this Court cannot look into those aspects and come to a conclusion that the allegations are omnibus in nature and quash the proceedings.

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

6. Ha