THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1937 OF 2021

ORDER

This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel (‘trial Court’ for brevity) for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act(‘DP’ Act for brevity).

2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Arjun, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Jitender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. The case of prosecution briefly stated as follows: respondent No.2 submits that she is married to one Rajesh Goud at her parents village on 17.06.2018 and out of wedlock they were blessed with one child. Accused No.1 started harassing the respondent No.2 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and thereafter, more than two panchayats were held in the presence of caste elders but of no use.

Accused No.1 necked Respondent No.2 out of her matrimonial house on 19.09.2018 and warned her not to come to their house without additional dowry and since, then she has been staying at her parents’ house. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed a complaint and FIR No.14 of 2019 was registered and after investigation the police filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was numbered as C.C.No.441 of 2019. Petitioners filed this criminal petition seeking quash of the C.C.No.441 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. However, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners as accused on the ground that the petitioners are sister and brother in law of accused No.1. Entire allegations are leveled against accused No.1 only. Accused No.1 or respondent No.2 at no point of time lived along with the petitioners. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act do not attract.

5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the only allegation leveled against petitioner No.2 that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was transferred to his account by the parents of respondent No.2, is for the purpose of purchasing jewelry and other household articles in favour of respondent No.2 only and the petitioner No.2 has handed over the said amount to the parents of respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in her evidence in M.C.No.94 of 2019 admitted that Rs.7,25,000/- was transferred from her mother account to the account of petitioner No.2 and pursuant to the transfer of said amount only they purchased the jewelry at CMR Jewelers. Hence, the offence under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act, does not attract against petitioner No.2. He further submitted that omnibus allegations are leveled against petitioner No.1 only with an intention to implicate her as accused. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners about harassment for additional dowry. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final report wherein the specific role of the petitioners is mentioned to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Whether the amount transferred into the account of petitioner No.2 is towards dowry or for purchasing the jewelry for respondent No.2 is a disputed question of fact. Basing on the deposition of respondent No.2 in M.C.No.94 of 2019, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of proceedings and the petitioners are entitled to place all