ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 in C.C No.357 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kamareddy.

2. Briefly, the case of the 2nd respondent is that the 2nd respondent filed complaint on 24.10.2018 stating that she was married to A1/1st petitioner on 15.03.2017 and at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.25.00 lakhs cash, 48 tulas gold, one i- phone, Rs.3.00 lakhs value furniture was also given. They lived happily for a period of two months and thereafter, the husband and petitioners started harassing the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs on daily basis. She became pregnant and for the said reason, she was sent to her parents(cid:146) house on 29.05.2017. The petitioners used to make phone calls asking for additional dowry and threatened with dire consequences if the said amount is not given. A boy was born on 03.01.2018 and on the date of cradle ceremony in the house of the parents of the

2nd respondent, all the petitioners allegedly questioned for additional dowry and A1 beat her. Further, when she went to attend cradle ceremony of her younger sister-in-law also, A1 and these petitioners asked for dowry. For the said reason, complaint was lodged alleging harassment against husband and other relatives of the husband. The said complaint was registered as FIR No.62 of 2018 by PS. Bibipet and investigated by the police and filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that two months after the 2nd respondent received notices in divorce application filed by A1/1st petitioner, present complaint was filed. Though she states that she went to her parents(cid:146) house on 29.05.2017, present complaint was filed on 24.10.2018 nearly one year and five months thereafter. For the said reason of the complaint being result of divorce application being filed, the allegations are only made up for the purpose of this case. For the said reason, the proceedings have to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant would submit that there are specific allegations which are leveled against these petitioners regarding harassment. Two specific instances of these petitioners asking for dowry is narrated in the complaint when they went for functions which are at the house of 2nd respondent and the other in the house of sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. Further, the father has parted with an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs and handed over to A1 and for the remaining amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs, the 2nd respondent was harassed. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against these petitioners cannot be quashed.

5. As seen from the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, the allegations are that A1 beat her on three occasions and the petitioners 2 to 5, who are A3 to A6 also harassed the defacto complainant/2nd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners 3 to 5 are staying at different places in Hyderabad and they were already married by the time A1 married the 2nd respondent and living their lives separately.

6. For the reason of complaint being filed after receiving divorce notice by the 2nd respondent, it cannot be presumed that such allegations are only made up for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint. However, in the complaint, there are allegations which are made against the petitioners 2 to 5 stating that they have demanded for additional dowry and instigated A1. Apart from the said allegation, in the functions that were held, no other instances are narrated. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was staying at her parents(cid:146) house since May, 2017. The petitioners 3 to 5 are staying at different places and were already married as stated above.

7. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon(ci