IMPORTANT POINT
Court must guard against attempt to falsely implicate family members of husband in dowry offences.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [in short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed, by the petitioners/A.3 and A.4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [in short, 'I.P.C.'] and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [in short, 'D.P.Act'] .

2. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.3 and 4 in the above C.C and Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Petitioner No.2 is the husband of Petitioner No.1.

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

a. The marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with Accused No.1 on 22/11/2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant presented 22 tulas of gold ornaments to Accused No.1, towards dowry. Accused No.1 was then working as Staff Assistant in D.C.C.Bank, Kamalapuram. During wedlock, de facto complainant gave birth to a male and a female child. Accused Nos.1 to 4 asked the de facto complainant, to give her daughter to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to feed her, as they have no issues, for which the de facto complainant did not agree. As such, all the accused used to harass the de facto complainant both physically and mentally.

b. In the meantime, Accused No.1 was transferred to Sundupalli and then the accused demanded the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. Though the de facto complainant expressed the inability of her parents to give the said amount, all the accused did not heed to her. On information given by the de facto complainant, when her parents came to the house of the accused, they were abused by the accused in filthy language. All the accused necked the de facto complainant out of the house stating that they will perform another marriage to Accused No.1. The panchayat held by the elders 3 was not successful.

c. The de facto complainant lodged a report against all the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.11 of 2019 for the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act was registered by III Town Police, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District against the accused. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed by the Police before the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur for the above said offence and the same was numbered as C.C.No.106 of 2019.

d. This C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/A.3 and A.4, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri K.Dhanamjaya Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the sister-in-law and her husband and they have been residing separately. He would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and as such, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

6. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Respondent No.2, in unison, would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioners and the allegations made against the petitioners would squarely attract the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioners.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows;

Whether the case against the Petitioners/A.3