Vague allegations in dowry cases are insufficient for prosecution; specific accusations are necessary to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.)

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/A1 to A4, to quash C.C.No.376 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 312, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Petitioners are A1 to A4 in C.C.No.376 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners herein/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 312, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant with respondent No.1 herein/A1 performed on 06.12.2015. At the time of their marriage, parents of de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs, 100 sovereigns of gold and two apartments, situate in Tirupati and Bangalore, to the accused apart from 30 grams of gold to A1 and household articles worth of Rs.5.00 lakhs. They both led happy marital life for six months. Subsequently, A1 harassed the de facto complainant by beating her and used to show porn videos. On 09.05.2017, de facto complainant was blessed with a male child. A1 used to spend all the earnings of de facto complainant and whenever she questions, A1 used to beat her in drunken state. A1 also used to demand the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.50.00 lakhs and when her parents expressed their inability, A1 abused de facto complainant and beat her. On knowing the same, L.W.4/ K.Chaitanya Kumar Reddy, elder brother of de facto complainant, gave a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the month of December, 2018.

4. It is the further allegation that subsequent to death of father-in-law of de facto complainant, A2 stayed with de facto complainant and A1 in Bangalore for about eight months and both harassed and demanded her to bring balance Rs.45.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. On that, the elder brother of de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A1 and on further demand, the de facto complainant bought a car in the month of September, 2020 by availing loan in her working company. A1 with a malafide intention forced the de facto complainant to sign as surety and co-applicant for a sum of Rs.80.00 lakhs towards loan, but she refused to do so. On 12.11.2022, A1, A3 and A4 together demanded money and stated that if money is given, there would be no more quarrel. As such, the de facto complainant presented report to police on 24.11.2022 against A1 to A4 and the same is registered as a case in Crime No.88 of 2022 by Disha Women PS, Tirupati.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein/ A1 to A4 contends that an omnibus accusation has been made as against A3 and A4, and vague and bald allegations are hurled to the extent that they encouraged A1 to demand more money. Beyond that no specific act has been attributed as against A3 and A4.

6. Learned counsel strenuously contended that A2, who is the mother of A1, after death of her husband, stayed with A1 and de facto complainant for a period eight (08) months and at that juncture, A1 and A2 are alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant both mentally and physically. According to her, the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2019, thereafter, there is no as against A2 is concerned.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant contends that there is an allegations as against A3 and A4 are concerned and A2 is alleged to have demanded Rs.45.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and she along with A1 alleged to have beat her demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.45.00 lakhs.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant would further contend that these are disputed questions of fact and same has to be adjudic