T.NAMAHSIVAYA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No.3 in C.C.No.349 of 2012 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad seeks for his discharge. The complaint of the 2nd respondent culminated in a charge -sheet under Section 498 -A, IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the D.P. Act, for short).

(2.) ACCUSED No.1 in the case is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. The petitioner, who is accused No.3, is the father of accused No.1. Pending the case, accused No.2 died.

(3.) IT is contended by Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that bald allegation of demand for additional dowry was made against accused 2 and 3 and that no specific event of demand was alleged. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent claimed that accused 2 and 3 put the 2nd respondent to extreme pressure for additional dowry. The word used by her is that accused 2 and 3 were eating the 2nd respondent. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the contention of the 2nd respondent was primarily aimed at her husband/accused No.1 and not against accused 2 and 3.