The Court made the following ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3711 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of de- facto complainant with A1 was performed on 28.04.2018. Before the marriage, the accused made de-facto complainant and her parents believe that A1 was doing broom business earning Rs.50,000/- per month and promised to look after her well. LWs.2 and 3 spent about Rs.20,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, paid Rs.1,35,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam, and transferred Rs.7,00,000/- to A1’s account. After marriage, A1 did not maintain marital relations, picked up quarrels, and along with other accused harassed the de-facto complainant physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry. A3 blamed her as lunatic, and A4 also harassed her.The de facto complainant later came to know that A1’s business was false and he was working under Sudheer (LW.8). On demand, LWs.2 and 3 paid Rs.5,00,000/-, and she handed over her gold ornaments, which were pledged at Muthoot Finance through LW.8. Despite this, the accused continued harassment and A1 drove her out of the house insisting that she return only after getting a job. Based on the report, a case in Cr.No.69/2019 was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

3. This Court, on 01.08.2023, while ordering notice to 2nd respondent, granted interim stay of all further proceedings, in respect of petitioner herein, in C.C.No.3711 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

4. Sri Sardam Hussain, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, still no offence is made out against the petitioner herein. According to him, the petitioner is the sister of A1. He further submits that except omnibus accusations made against the petitioner, there is absolutely no other material to connect the petitioner to the crime. Even according to the charge sheet, except stating that petitioner was visiting the house of A1 and whenever she visited, she allegedly harassed the defacto complainant, there are no specific allegations. Except this vague and false statement that has been made as against the petitioner herein, there is no other accusations have been made against the petitioner. According to him, all the accusations are mainly directed against A1 to A3.

5. On the other hand, Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioner that she harassed the de-facto complainant, which is sufficient for the prosecution to proceed and face trial. According to him, the petitioner’s son was staying in the house of A1, and on that pretext, the petitioner was visiting the house of A1.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/de- facto complainant.

7. Heard. Perused the record.

8. The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A1 was performed on 28.04.2018. At the time of marriage, it was informed to the de-facto complainant that A1 was doing business and earning Rs.50,000/- per month and promised that he would look after her well. It is further stated that they were also having a car. It is said that L.Ws.2 and 3 spent about Rs.20,00,000/- towards marriage, and Rs.1,35,000/- was given towards Adapaduchu Katnam. Before marriage, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and after marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred to A1’s account from the account of the de-facto complainant.

9. In pursuance of the marriage, the de-facto complainant join