THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1719 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.3696 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 02.12.2015. After one month of the marriage, accused No.1 arranged a visa for respondent No.1. While making the necessary arrangements, accused Nos.2 to 6 advised her to inform the concerned authorities that she was going to serve as a cook and housemaid, and not as a wife joining her husband to lead a marital life. On 20.01.2016, respondent No.1 travelled to the USA and joined the conjugal society of accused No.1. However, accused No.1 used to make telephone calls to the parents of respondent No.1 and inform them that he was not interested in leading a marital life with her and that he would be sending her back to India. On 08.11.2017, respondent No.1 gave birth to a female child. A few days later, accused No.1 arranged tickets for respondent No.1 and the minor child and insisted that she return to India. Thereafter, accused No.1 returned to India but did not make any effort to visit the child. When respondent No.1 contacted accused No.1 over the phone, he asked her to come to Bhadrakali Temple. Accordingly, respondent No.1 went to the Bhadrakali Temple on 06.11.2018, where she met accused No.1, but he refused to allow her to rejoin his conjugal society. Subsequently, a panchayat was held, and the elders found fault with accused No.1 and advised him to change his attitude and lead a happy marital life. Following this, respondent No.1 rejoined accused No.1 at Bheemaram village, and accused No.1 subsequently returned to the USA on 27.11.2018. When accused No.1 came back to India on 06.08.2019, he stopped speaking to respondent No.1 and used to consult his mother for everything, even though they were residing in the same room. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 subjected respondent No.1 to mental and physical harassment for additional dowry. Aggrieved by such harassment, respondent No.1 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-A and 342 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and have never subjected the respondent No.1 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents and the petitioner- accused Nos.4 to 6 are the sisters of the accused No.1. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.1 and the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 58 and 69 years, respectively. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.1 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is further contended that all the petitioners are staying separately away from the accused No.1 and respondent No.1. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Apart from the same, the charge under Section 342 of IPC is also not made out against the petit