THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5407 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1284 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada, Rajanna-Sircilla District, pertaining to Crime No.365 of 2021 of P.S. Vemulawada Town, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Notices sent to respondent No.2-de facto complainant by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as through learned Assistant Public Prosecutor were returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. Refusal of notice amounts to service of notice. Inspite of the same, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are the mother, father, brother and married sister of the petitioner-accused No.1.

4. The gist of the complaint is that the de facto complainant was married to the petitioner-accused No.1 on 26.11.2010 and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for few days. Thereafter, the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 5 started harassing the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a baby girl. After the birth of baby girl, the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 5 forced the de facto complainant to kill the baby as she is of black complexion. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 necked out the de facto complainant from the matrimonial home. Hence, the present complaint.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and petitioner- accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are staying away from the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. It is further contended that in the year 2013, the de facto complainant has lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners herein. She has also filed M.C. and D.V.C. cases. However, the said cases were compromised. Thereafter, they led happy marital life for some period and again in the year 2021, the present complaint was lodged on the very same set of allegations of the earlier complaint. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to them. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any