THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6200 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.234 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 156(3)

of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.).

02. Heard Mr.Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 inspite of service of notice, hence heard Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the

marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized in the month of February, 2017. After marriage

she led happy life for a couple of days. Later the petitioners started to harass the respondent No.2 by suspecting her chastity and demanded for additional dowry. Thereafter the accused No.1 left to Malaysia for his livelihood and informed respondent No.2 to prepare passport to join him. Later accused started harassing her over trivial issues on phone. Accused No.1 used to abuse respondent No.2 in the presence of accused No.2 and 3 and in public when he is in India during his little span of time. In this regard, a panchayath was conducted at Kondagattu in the presence of his inmates and elders towards the defacto complainant and accused and tried to resolve the issue. Later accused No.1 took her to Malaysia and tortured her in all manners. Later she fell ill and the accused No.1 sent her to her parents for medical treatment and since then she is residing with her parents. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act and section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. Accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant, and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the mother and father of the accused No.1 and they were implicated in the present case on the allegation of demand of additional dowry. The petitioners submit that there are no specific allegations against them and the police at the time of filing charge sheet has not taken into consideration that there is no prima facie evidence against them and filed the charge sheet. It is submitted that even if the entire version of the prosecution is assumed to be true, then also, there is no specific role or specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the alleged offences. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and a false complaint was lodged against them. In fact immediately after the marriage defacto complainant left the company of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 filed a case before the Family Court cum III Additional District Judge, Warangal vide FCOP No.67 of 2019 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she did not appear before the Court and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner No.1 on 12.09.2019, directing the respondent No.2 to join the petitioner for leading marital life. But inspite of the order, respondent No.2 did not join the petitioner/accused No.1. Subsequently he filed a petition under Section 13 (ia) (1b) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking dis