Vague and omnibus allegations against relatives residing separately without specific roles in a matrimonial dispute cannot sustain a prosecution under IPC and SC/ST Act, amounting to an abuse of process.

ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, (SCs/STs) Court at Karimnagar, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the D.P. Act’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2015) (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that respondent No.2, who belongs to Madiga (SC) community, worked as a Computer Operator in the office of Provident Fund at Singareni Coal Mines, Godavarikhani, on contract basis. She got acquainted with accused No.1 at work, who belongs to Settibalije (BC-B) community. Later they fell in love and got married on 24.01.2009 at Hyderabad, against the wish of their family members, as they belong to different caste. Their marriage was registered at Sub Registrar's office at Peddapalli in the presence of both the families. After one year of their marriage, accused No.1 started insulting respondent No.2 saying that fascination is over on her and he is getting irritated and if he had married someone from his caste, he would have got Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. Every day accused No.1 abused respondent No.2, kicked her with legs and tortured her mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter and son. Respondent No.2 expected some change in the attitude of accused No.1 but he continued to harass her. Later, accused No.1 lost his job, as he was involved in a criminal case. He left to his native village at Kothagundam and started working as Security Guard in S & PC Department. Accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 to come to Kothagudam. Due to unbearable harassment, she left her job at Godavarikhani and joined accused No.1 along with her children. There she lived along with the petitioners in the same house. It is alleged that the petitioners supported accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2. Accused No.1 continued to harass her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- and beat her and later necked her out of the house and since then respondent No.2 has been residing with her parents. Hence, she lodged the complaint and based on the same, Crime No.283 of 2019 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 4 of the D.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Sessions Judge, took cognizance of the same and numbered it as S.C.No.104 of 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners through video conference submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 25.11.2022, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due and filed proof of service vide USR No.1224 of 2023 on 04.01.2023. Along with the memo, learned counsel has filed postal track consignment. Hence, this Court recorded the service of notice on 27.12.2023. In spite of service, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with this matter on merits.

4. Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offences and they