SHAIK ARIFA Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/A.4 seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 85 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

(2.) THE police Kavali I Town Police Station on the complaint of Pattan Sonia Bhani registered Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and investigated the matter and filed charge -sheet against A.1 to A.5. A.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant, A.2 and A.3 are the parents and A.4 is the married sister of A.1. Whereas A.5 is concerned, A.1 is allegedly having illegal contacts with her which is one of the main reasons for bickerings between the complainant and A.1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that except a general and sweeping allegation against A.4, who is the married sister of A.1, that on her abetment A.1 demanded additional dowry and gold from the parents of the complainant, no specific overtacts with detailed particulars are made out in the charge -sheet. In complaint also similar type of sweeping allegations are made as if A.4 and her parents goaded A.1 to beat and torture complainant when she questioned his illegal intimacy with A.5 and except the aforesaid general allegations, no specific overtacts are attributed against petitioner/A.4. Learned counsel while denying those allegations submitted that she is a married sister and living separately and in such an instance, it would be hard to believe that she would join hands with her parents to harass de facto complainant. He thus prayed to allow the petition. He relied upon the decision reported in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another : (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submitted that the tendency to rope in as many relatives of the husband of the complainant as possible is more in 498A cases and hence Court needs to carefully scrutinise the allegations to come to a conclusion.