ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.2338 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent- complainant lodged a complaint on 09.03.2023 before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District against accused Nos.1 to 5 (A.1 to A.5). A.1 is the husband of 2nd respondent, A.2 and A.3 are in-laws, A.4 and A.5 are the brother and sister-in-law of A.1. The petitioners herein are A.2 and A.3 and they are residing in Nellore Town, A.4 and A.5 are residing in U.S.A., since 2015. They have attended the marriage of A.1, stayed for 15 days and returned to U.S.A. Again they have visited India in the month of September, 2018, seen the child of A.1 and returned to U.S.A., on 06.10.2018. Thereafter, they never came to India. The 2nd respondent in her complaint states that her father is a Gazetted Officer, that her marriage was performed with A.1 on 11.11.2016, and at the time of marriage her father gave dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs cash, Rs.10 Lakhs gold and spent Rs.5 Lakhs towards marriage expenditure. After one month of the marriage A.1 used to behave very strangely, very cruelly, he used to manhandle the 2nd respondent not only in her house but also at her parents house, that A.1 got dual personality and she could not bear his harassment. That the inlaws, brother-in-law and co-sister of 2nd respondent used to involve in their family issues intentionally and created unnecessary quarrels between the 2nd respondent and A.1; that the brother-in-law and co-sister used to insult her stating that they don’t have any properties; that her inlaws never talked to her properly; that A.1 and inlaws of 2nd respondent used to insult her stating that she is fatty, abused her and also did not provide proper food to her and her son. Basing on the said complaint the police registered case against A.1 to A.5 and after investigation deleted the names of A.4 and A.5 stating that they are residing in U.S.A. and complainant never told about the involvement of A.4 and A.5 in her matrimonial life.

3. Heard Sri Nageswar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that A.1 filed O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights vide F.C.O.P.No.556 of 2023, that he never demanded any dowry and he never harassed the 2nd respondent, in fact, he wanted to take back the 2nd respondent. He also contended that the petitioners herein never resided with A.1 and 2nd respondent, they are residents of Nellore, that A.1 and 2nd respondent are residents of Hyderabad. There are no such instances to demand additional dowry and further submitted that the independent witnesses Lws.6 and 7 stated that the parents of A.1, brother and sister- in-law of A.1 never visited the house of 2nd respondent and A.1. Except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that though the petitioners herein are residing separately, they used to instigate A.1 to harass the 2nd respondent, they used to visit the house of A.1 and 2nd respondent and there are specific allegations against these petitioners, that they demanded additional dowry and also harassed the 2nd respondent mentally and physically, which requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition.

6. Having