THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8813 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3043 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri T. Sasi Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial 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 daughter of the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 13.08.2014. They lived happily for some years and blessed with two children. The accused No.1 used to leave his job frequently. The accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 7 started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding to give ½ acre of land. Due to the said harassment, the daughter of respondent No.2 consumed bathroom acid. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 504 read with 34 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the daughter of the respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 65 and 63 years, respectively and residing at Alwal, Secunderabad. The petitioners-accused No.4 and 5 are married sisters and they are residing along with their husbands, separately at their in-laws’ house. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of daughter of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from the daughter of the respondent No.2.

There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A, 504 read with 34 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 were living separately from the accused No.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2, at different places i.e. Secunderabad, East Godavari, Suryapet, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2.

07. Except stating that since the date of marriage the accused No.1 was not attending any job properly, there were no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. Here, it is to be noted that the marriage of the accused No.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2 solemnized in the year 2014. The complaint with regard to the present allegations was lodged on 21.08.2021 at 1800 hours by the respondent No.2. But the FIR was registered on 27.08.2021. There is no explanation for the said unreasonable delay in registering the FIR. Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete