IMPORTANT POINT
Vague allegations in dowry harassment cases do not justify prosecution; specific accusations are necessary to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against her in C.C. No. 3109 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [for short ‘D.P. Act’]

2. Petitioner herein is the sister-in-law of Respondents No. 2/Complainant.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The marriage of Respondent No. 2/Complainant with Accused No. 1 was performed on 06.11.2015.

(b) At the time of marriage, the father of Respondent No. 2 gave dowry or Rs.10,00,000/- 25 sovereigns of gold and 50 tulas of silver articles.

(c) Accused No. 1 has been working as a Government Teacher and after the death of the father of Respondent No. 2, they have been residing with the mother of Respondent No. 2.

(d) Accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to instigate Accused No. 1 and harass Respondent No. 2 by demanding her to bring more money from her parental home.

(e) Accused No. 1 used to harass Respondent No. 2 both physically and mentally by abusing her in filthy language and they did not heed to the words of the elders.

(f) As such, Respondent No. 2/Complainant lodged a report with Women Police Station, Guntur Urban against Accused and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 300 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against all the Accused for the said offences.

4. Grounds for quashment:

Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is filed by Petitioner/Accused No. 2 to quash the proceedings against her in the above C.C. on the following grounds:

(i) Petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offences and she is falsely implicated in the above crime.

(ii) Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is married and she has been residing with her family at Singarayakonda and she is no way concerned with the family affairs of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1.

(iii) On 01.10.2019 the Petitioner got Government Job and on the very next date, Respondent No. 2 filed the present case by implicating the Petitioner.

(iv) There is no single allegation mentioned in the previous complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 against Accused No. 1 in Spandana on 30.09.2019. But, after coming to know about the appointment order dt.10.10.2019 of the Petitioner, the present complaint was filed by falsely implicating the Petitioner.

(v) The Petitioner never visited the house of Accused No. 1.

(vi) The Police without conducting proper investigation, filed charge sheet in the present case for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No. 2.

6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner:

(i) Petitioner is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2.

(ii) Initially a complaint was lodged on 30.09.2019 by Respondent No. 2 against Accused No. 1, wherein, the name of the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 was not referred.

(iii) Petitioner got a Government job as Panchayat Secretary on 01.10.2019, which made the Complainant to lodge the present complaint on 02.10.2019 by making some allegations against the Petitioner that she used to harass her.

(iv) The present complaint, which is a second one, is a motivated one only to harass the Petitioner and the same is not maintainable.

(v) Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is an abuse of process of law.

7. Arguments advanced by the learned Assist