ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

2. The petitioner who is arrayed as A3, filed the present petition questioning her implication in the above case filed for the offences under Sections 304-B of IPC.

3. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, his deceased daughter was married to A1 after they informed them and parents of A1 that they were in love and they intend to marry. Marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2018. At the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- cash and gold etc., were given towards dowry. The deceased joined A1 at his house in Srinivasnagar Colony, Nagaram. For some time, they led peaceful marital life. However, A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. According to the investigation, this petitioner, who is resident of USA was making phone calls to A1 and instigated A1 to harass the deceased. The 2nd respondent and others knowing about the harassment, tried to pacify A1 and A2, but there was no change in the attitude of A1 and A2. On 21.02.2021, the deceased sent whatsapp message to her father stating that A1 was money minded person and expecting amount from her parents. Further he was passing comments against her. Vexed with such conduct of A1, deceased committed suicide on

21.02.2021 by jumping from roof top of a building.

4. Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 and for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. This petitioner was shown as absconding

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against this petitioner is that she had made phone calls to A1 and instigated him to harass the deceased. On the basis of such bald allegation of making phone calls, the prosecution cannot be continued. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in the case of i)State of Haryana v. Bajanlal reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335; ii) Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. The Special Judicial Magistrate and others [(1998) 5 SCC 749]; iii) S.W.Palnikar V. State of Bihar reported in 2002(1) SCC 241) and sought intervention of this Court in quashing the proceedings on the ground of there being no case made against this petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed counter stating that this petitioner was the person who had instigated A1 and A2 to harass the deceased. Though, she was staying in USA, this petitioner instigated A1 and A2 by making whatsapp video calls to get rid of the deceased. He relied on the judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.1731 of 2010) and argued that the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court observed that dowry harassment is a crime dangerous to the society, where women are subjected to cruelty by greedy and selfish husband and in-laws. He further argued that there is nexus in between the death and harassment meted out to the deceased.

7. As seen from the record, at no point of time did this petitioner either confront the defacto complainant or the deceased in any manner. The only allegation is that she was making phone calls to A1 and A2 and in the process instigating them to harass the deceased. In the complaint and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, an omnibus allegation is made against this petitioner that she was physically and mentally harassing the deceased, though she was in U.S.A.

8. The allegation that she was making phone calls to A1 and A2 and instigating them to harass the deceased is an assumption of the police and also the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that at no point of time did this petitioner in any manner either assaulted or indulged in any oral abuse or demand any amount either from the deceased or the 2nd respondent. On the basis of vague allegation that she was complicit in the offence of abetting suicide by making phone call