ORDER :

K SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.545 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, arising out of a case in Crime No.104 of 2022 of Disha Police Station, Vijayawada city, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act, 1961’).

2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge sheet, in brief, are that accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, accused No.2 is the father of accused Nos.1 and 3 and accused No.3 is the elder brother of accused No.1.

(b) The marriage of respondent No.2/de facto complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 on 21.05.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs; that for sometime after the marriage, respondent No.2/de facto complainant and accused No.1 led happy matrimonial life and her in-laws also looked after her well; that subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have started harassing respondent No.2/de facto complainant for additional dowry; that the parents of respondent No.2/de facto complainant purchased household articles worth of Rs.2.00 lakhs to respondent No.2/de facto complainant, but again they demanded additional dowry of Rs.4.00 lakhs to purchase a car; that a proposal was made to perform marriage of younger sister of respondent No.2/de facto complainant with the brother of accused No.1, for which, the parents of respondent No.2/de facto complainant refused, as a result of which, accused No.1 was said to have increased the harassment towards respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It is the allegation that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded respondent No.2/ de facto complainant to bring agriculture lands and other properties standing in the name of her mother L.W2/Gudiseva Durga Chandra Nagaraju, otherwise she would be necked out from the matrimonial home. On 11.11.2019 accused No.1 left the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and her child in the flat situated at Bangalore. The case was reported to police on 03.01.2020 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2021 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet.

3. Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 would contend that 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners/A2 and A3, who are father-in-law and brother-in-law of 2^nd respondent, never resided continuously along with 1^st petitioner/A1 and they were falsely implicated only to wreck vengeance. It is further contended that there is no need to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to demand 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant to bring additional dowry, for the reason, 1^st and 3^rd petitioners are working as Software Employees and they were earning sufficiently and even, the property belongs to parents of 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, stands in her name only. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 that as 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant tried to commit suicide in the house of 1^st petitioner/A1 at Bengaluru on several occasions, A1 gave a report to the Station House Officer, Marathanhalli, Bengaluru city on 25.11.2019, and keeping the same in mind, 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant complained against petitioners/A1 to A3 to 1^st respondent/Police at the instigation of her parents, as a counterblast to the earlier report made by 1^st petitioner/A1.

Learned counsel would further contend that earlier 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant gave report to Marathanhalli Police Station, Bengaluru against the petitioners/A1 to A3, and a case i