In dowry harassment cases, specific overt acts must be identified against relatives for proceedings; vague allegations are insufficient to sustain charges.

JUDGMENT/ ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 4 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in CC No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').

2. Petitioner/accused No.2 is the mother, petitioner/accused No.3 is the sister and petitioner/accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

(a) The marriage between respondent No.2/de facto complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 was performed on 16.03.2000 at Punganur per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs, gold bracelet, one gold chain, two gold rings as dowry and also presented gold ornaments weighing 250 gms., to respondent No.2.

(b) Out of wedlock, as she gave birth to a female child. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass her verbally. When respondent No.2 gave birth to another female child, petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 asked her to leave the child and petitioner/accused No.1 threatened that if she does not for do so, he will leave her. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 used to support petitioner/ accused No.1 in harassing her.

(c) Petitioner/accused No.1 used to beat respondent No.2 indiscriminately by demanding additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs. The efforts of the elders for pacifying the matter proved futile and there was no change in the attitude of petitioner/accused No.1. On 27.01.2021, on her absence, petitioner/accused No.1 came to the house and took away gold jewellery, house documents, two gas cylinders in the presence of her younger daughter.

(d) Having no other go, she lodged a complaint with the police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.51 of 2021 on the file of Punganur Urban Police Station, Chittoor District for the offence under Section 4 98-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which was numbered as CC No.283 of 2021 for the offence under Section 4 98-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

(e) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel representing Ms. S. Parineeta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.1 and Sri P.V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 would submit that, after 21 years of the marriage, the complaint was lodged against the petitioners. Learned Counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 never resided alongwith the family of respondent No.2 and they have been falsely implicated in the present case, though no specific overt acts are attributed against them. Learned Counsel would further submit that since 2014 respondent No.2 has not been residing with petitioner/accused No.1 and she herself deserted him. Learned Counsel would finally submits that, except bald and omnibus allegations, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Per co