Vague and general allegations in dowry harassment cases do not constitute a prima facie case, necessitating specific allegations to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC‟) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "D.P.Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

i) Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are accused Nos.1 to 5. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of the defacto complainant. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are brother-in-laws of the defacto complainant. The marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with petitioner No.1 about 20 years ago. As per the demand of petitioner No.1, parents of respondent No.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of Gold ornaments as dowry.

ii) After the marriage, respondent No.2 went to her in-laws house to lead happy marital life. As petitioner No.1 was doing Tailoring works, they lived in Hyderabad for a period of two years and later, they went to Mumbai. They are blessed with two daughters. In Mumbai, respondent No.2 came to know that petitioner No.1 has illegal intimacy with another lady. Further, respondent No.2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment by petitioner No.1. Due to the physical and mental harassment caused by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 and her children went to her parents' house and informed the same to her in- laws, but petitioner Nos.2 to 5 supported petitioner No.1 and demanded additional dowry. Then the matter was placed before the elders, in the settlement, parents of respondent No.2 gave Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry to petitioner No.1, thereafter, petitioner No.1 started tailoring shop at Amalapuram, but continued his illegal intimacy, on noticing the same, respondent No.2 questioned petitioner No.1, then he beat respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry by selling the land of Ac.0.25 cents, which was gifted to respondent No.2 by her parents at the time of her marriage. As per the demand of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 sold the land and paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of elders.

iii) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 shifted his residence to Hyderabad and continued to harass the respondent No.2, due to the continuous harassment caused by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 came back to her in-laws house. Again, petitioners demanded additional dowry from the parents of respondent No.2. On 15.10.2016 at about 08.30 p.m. petitioner No.1 visited the house of respondent No.2 and demanded her to sign on divorce papers, as she refused sign on those papers, petitioner No.1 beat her indiscriminately and tried to pour acid on her. On hearing the cries of petitioner No.1, elders and neighbours went to the house of respondent No.2 and rescued her.

(iv) Thereafter, respondent No.2 went to the police and lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein. Police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 163 of 2016 and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioners accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of 1.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was registered as C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta. The present petition has been filed to quash the said C.C.No.319 of 2017.

3. Heard Mr.Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A1 to A5 would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet that the compl