ORDER

1. The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed by the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.2 of 2022 on the file of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,1860² and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961³

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. Petitioners herein are A.2 to A.5 and respondent No.2 is the De facto Complainant in the above Crime. A.2 is the Mother-in-law, A.3 is the Father-in-

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘IPC’

for short ‘D.P.Act’

law, A.4 brother-in-law and A.5 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Marriage of de facto Complainant with Accused No.1 was performed on 04.01.2013. At the time of marriage, respondent No.2’s parents gave Rs.10.00 lakhs cash, Rs.1.00 lakh as sister in law dowry, four tulas gold, Rs.3.00 lakhs worth sarees. After some of the marriage, respondent No.2 went to Gujarath where A.1 was working in Reliance Company. During wedlock, they blessed with a boy child.

b. Whatever respondent No.2 asks, A.1 used to say that she has to bring from her parents house and subsequently, he started harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry. Till A.1 got job, they stayed at the house of her sister-in-law (A.5) where she used to harass the respondent No.2 and even all the accused used to harass her for additional dowry.

c. Due to unbearable harassment, she came to her parents house and that all the accused came there and said that if she wants to come to in-laws house, she has to sell her gold and clear their loans and all of them harassed her physically and mentally.

d. Respondent No.2 gave Complaint to the Police, in turn, the Police registered the same as a case as stated above against A.1 to A.5 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the Proceedings in the above Crime against the petitioners/A.2 to A.5.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. In spite of service of notice, none represented Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 would submit that the Petitioners never stayed with A.1 and Respondent No.2 under one roof and even never interfered with their family life and that no specific overt acts are attributed against them muchless the offences alleged against them. Learned counsel submits that A.2 and A.3 are residing at Visakhapatnam and that A.1 and respondent No.2 lived at Gujarath for six years and then they were relocated and stayed in Aminpur, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State. Learned counsel submits that A.1 filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights and after filing mediation petition under Section 89 of the Code, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint as a counter blast and since she filed a case under Section 498-A IPC, A.1 filed divorce petition. Except omnibus allegations that all the accused harassed for additional dowry, no specific overacts were attributed to the Petitioners on the ground that they supported A.1. A.4 and A.5 were married long back and living with their families and Petitioners never involved in the day to day family affairs of the couple. Learned counsel submits that Petitioners are no way connected with the disputes between the wife and husband. Learned counsel prays for quashment of CC against the Petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations attributed against all the Petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioners are mainly responsible for harassment of respondent No.2 for demand of additional dowry from her parents and that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submiss