THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2548 & 3288 of 2022

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.12323 of 2019 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 are under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 and Sri D.Sudharshan, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. 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 on 19.06.2003. Thereafter, the accused No.1 used to treat the respondent No.2 as a slave and with the instigation of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 used to harass her physically and mentally. The respondent No.2 and her family members were made to believe that the accused No.1 was working in United States of America but he was studying in Toronto, Canada. She gave birth to a female child and the accused have demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry. Later on, accused No.1 filed a divorce case against the respondent No.2 at Toronto, Canada. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 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 respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister of the accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.4. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 71 and 76 years. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. The respondent No.2 had stated before the Court of the Child Welfare Committee, Karimnagar, that the accused No.1 never harassed her. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act. Hence, he sought for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss these Criminal Petitions.

06. As seen from the entire record, the respondent No.2 and accused No.1 after their marriage were living together along with the accused Nos.2 and 3 at Karimnagar. Whereas, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, who are wife and husband i.e. sister and brother-in-law of the accused No.1 are residents of Warangal District. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. There are no specific allegations in the entire charge sheet as to in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 have harassed the respondent No.2.

07. All the allegations are made against the accused No.1. It is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 filed divorce case against the respondent No.2. The present calendar case has been filed by the respondent No.2 after the divorce case filed by the accused No.1. There are no specific