ASHUTOSH SHUKLA Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the Petitioners/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.4148 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam seeking quashment of the case against them for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

(2.) Heard Ms. K.Kokila, learned counsel representing Ms. Vinodin Ruth Madapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Though notice is served on the respondent No.2, they did not turn up.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A1 to A4. Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. A2 and A3 are the mother and father of the Accused No.1 respectively. Accused No.4 is the married sister of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that except vague and omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against the Petitioners in specific to attract either 498-A of IPC or Ss. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Respondent No.2 stayed with Accused Nos. 2 to 4 for two (2) days. The respondent No.2 has filed a petition for divorce in Visakhapatnam. Later, it was withdrawn. The respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking divorce before Family Court, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and obtained divorce on 29/6/2024. The marriage of Accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 6/7/2018 and the couple were not blessed with any child out of wedlock. Within couple of months, respondent No.2 started living separately. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused No.3 who is the father of the Accused No.1 has retired from BARC (Baba Atomic Research Center) and his retirement benefits are stalled due to the present case. The present case is lodged on 17/5/2019 by making allegations that the petitioners harassed her for additional dowry both physically and mentally. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 stayed with A2 and A3 for six days from 14/7/2018 to 20/7/2018. Accused No.4 who is the married sister of Accused no.1 never stayed with either the petitioners or with respondent No.2 after the marriage of Accused No.1. She was married long back and at the time of the marriage of accused No.1, she had a small baby. She has attended the marriage and left to her matrimonial house along with in laws and relatives. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.4 a Software Engineer.