THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7093 of 2022

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 7 in FIR, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.201 of 2022 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Husnabad. The allegations against these petitioners are for the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the police stating that she is the resident of Godavarikhani, and her marriage was performed on 21.12.2018 with accused No.1, and as per the demand of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 they gave 25 lakhs cash and 25 tolas of gold in the form of dowry, household articles worth of Rs.2 lakhs. They stayed happily for one year, and thereafter her in-

laws harassed her for want of additional dowry otherwise they asked her to leave the house. They said that their parents did not have money and so they are not in a position to give money then they told that they have government job and so they have married by expecting more dowry. Panchayat was held before elders, and as per elders advice they took her but again they harassed and she waited for change in her husband but there is no change and they asked the accused Nos.1 to 3 and petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.4 and 5 demanded to bring additional dowry, otherwise they asked to stay there itself. She stayed there only, her parents came to take her to the in-laws house to take her then her in-laws demanded for an additional dowry and then only they will allow her to go out of their house and informed her parents to keep their daughter with them only. Though they persuaded with elders nothing was fruitful. All the accused instigated accused No.1 and she filed a case before the police for the offence under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit aht accused No.1 had already filed divorce petition O.P.No.137 of 2021 seeking divorce against 2^nd respondent in July 2021 and the 2nd respondent appeared in the said O.P., and she has also filed Transfer CMP No.20 of 2021 and she filed complaint on 16.02.2022 nearly after nine months after filing of divorce petition to counterblast the case filed by the husband and the allegations against these petitioners are vague allegations and there is no truth in the allegations.

5. Petitioners 1 and 2 are sister and brother-in-law of A1, petitioner No.3 is cousin of A1, petitioner No.4 is resident of Kalledu village and he is relative of A1 to A3 and they have nothing to do with day to day affairs of accused No.1 and 2^nd respondent. These petitioners are unnecessarily implicated in the case and have never instigated A1 as such prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against these petitioners.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners are distant relatives of A1 and they have never resided with accused Nos.1 to 3. The allegations are vague allegations only to harass the petitioners, they were roped in offence as such prayed the Court to quash the proceedings and they relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1 wherein the Supreme Court observed that relatives of accused cannot be roped into.

8. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent submit that there are specific allegations against these petitioners and further submitted that the defacto complainant did not file any criminal case with the hope that the husband will take her back to their house and even today she is ready to join her husband as such she is not inclined to acce