The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal case against a sister-in law observing that taunting for not being able to conceive child is not sufficient to attract offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by the sister-in-law of the complainant against her arraignment as accused in criminal case.

The single bench of Justice Harinath N. observed, "Taunting on the ground of not being able to conceive cannot be taken as sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings against petitioners 3 and 4 under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. As such, this case is another where the unconnected relatives of the first accused are roped in as accused only for wreaking out vengeance against the first accused."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate ML Neelima while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Tota Tejeswara Rao.

Facts of the Case

The Petition was filed by Accused 2 to 5 in the case so registered. The Petitioners 1 and 2 were the Parents of the first accused while Petitioners 3 and 4 were the sisters of the first Accused. It was also submitted that the Petitioners did not interfere in the marital disputes between the first Accused and the third Respondent. However, the Petitioners were arraigned as accused to harass the Petitioners and to trouble them. It was further submitted that, insofar as Petitioners 3 and 4 were concerned, they, after their marriage, have been living separately in a different city and different part of the country. It was further submitted that, even as per the complaint or as per the statements recorded by the investigating officer, during the course of investigation, none of the witnesses speak any specific allegations against the Petitioners three and four.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even as seen from the complaint, the allegations against the Petitioners were vague, omnibus and lack specific details as to the alleged dates of harassment which the Petitioners were said to have meted to the third Respondent. It was further submitted that even as per the statements of the listed witnesses none of the witnesses speak about the involvement of the petitioners specifically which would attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the only allegation against the Petitioners 3 and 4 was that they were taunting the 3rd Respondent as she did not conceive.

"Going by the allegations made in the complaint and as seen from the record of the witness statements recorded by the police, even if the allegations made against the petitioners 3 and 4 are to be taken as true and correct for the purpose of the case, no case can be made out against the petitioners 3 and 4 under Section 498 A of IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act," the Court observed.

It noted that the allegations were vague without any specific details as to on what date and when the said taunting was resorted to by Petitioners 3 and 4 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law.

"The petitioners 3 and 4, soon after their marriage, were staying away and as such could not have resorted to any harassment to the third respondent and the allegations against the petitioners 3 and 4 cannot be considered as sufficient for punishing them for the of offences under Section 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act," the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly partly allowed.

Cause Title: Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao and Others vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Click here to read/ download Order






Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice Harinath. N

Sheetal Joon