- ORDER : 1. The petitioners are seeking to quash CC.No.925 of 2022 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5 and are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the second respondent has filed a complaint against her husband, as well as the husband’s father and mother, in addition to the petitioners. The complaint alleges that the second respondent was married to accused No.1 on 29 th October, 2020. It is claimed that the parents of the second respondent paid Rs.10,00,000 as dowry, along with other valuable gifts. 3. The second respondent specifically alleges that during the Covid-19 pandemic, accused No.1 did not work diligently and instead became addicted to online and cricket betting. To arrange funds for his betting habits, accused No. 1 mortgaged gold belonging to the second respondent. When this was brought to the attention of accused Nos. 2 and 3, they allegedly failed to respond positively and instead supported accused No. 1's misdeeds. Accused No. 1 reportedly moved to Bangalore on September 24, 2021, while the second respondent joined him there on October 15, 2021. It is alleged that accused No. 1 did not change his behavior, continued with his wayward activities, and pressured the second respondent to take out a loan of Rs.15,00,000. Accused No. 1 is said to have transferred Rs.13,50,000 from this loan to his account, while the remaining Rs.1,50,000 was transferred to the accounts of the petitioners. - 4. The complaint further alleges that the petitioners incited accused No. 1 to harass the second respondent. The complaint states that while in Visakhapatnam for a festival, accused No. 1 continued his illegal betting activities, developed an alcohol addiction, and subjected the second respondent to both physical and mental harassment. When the second respondent informed accused Nos. 2 and 3 about the loan, they claimed ignorance and expressed their inability to help repay it, suggesting that the second respondent should approach her parents for assistance. Consequently, the second respondent managed to arrange Rs.2,00,000/- with the help of her parents. 5. The complaint also mentions that the second respondent sought the intervention of elders who attempted to mediate and advised accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to resolve their financial problems without troubling her. Consequently, the second respondent managed to arrange Rs.2,00,000/- with the help of her parents. 5. The complaint also mentions that the second respondent sought the intervention of elders who attempted to mediate and advised accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to resolve their financial problems without troubling her. Afterward, accused No. 1 allegedly left Visakhapatnam for Bangalore without informing the second respondent. Accused Nos.2 and 3 expressed their ignorance regarding the loan repayment, while accused No.1 told the second respondent she could either clear the loans and join him or stay with her parents. Aggrieved by these actions, the second respondent filed a complaint. The police completed their investigation, recorded statements from seven witnesses, and filed a charge sheet indicating that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. - 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that aside from the allegation regarding the transfer of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioners’ account, there are no other substantial allegations against them. They argue that all other claims regarding alleged harassment towards accused No. 1 are vague, generalized, and lack substantive evidence. 7. The court has heard the arguments from both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Notice was sent to the second respondent, who is unrepresented. As there is no other option, the court proceeds to adjudicate the issue based on the merits of the case - 8. Upon reviewing the complaint, the charge sheet, and witness statements recorded during the investigation, it appears that the petitioners cannot be deemed to have committed offences under Section 498-A IPC. As the petitioners' counsel correctly argues, aside from the transfer of Rs.1,50,000/- from the second respondent's account to the petitioners, there are no other allegations that would invoke the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. 9. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that except for the issue of transfer of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the account of 2nd respondent to the petitioners, there is no other allegation which evidently would attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. 10. The key point for consideration is whether the transfer of funds from the complainant to the petitioners constitutes an offense under Section 498-A IPC, particularly regarding the relationship between the petitioners and accused No.1. 10. The key point for consideration is whether the transfer of funds from the complainant to the petitioners constitutes an offense under Section 498-A IPC, particularly regarding the relationship between the petitioners and accused No.1. The transfer of funds can be interpreted primarily as a financial transaction, which is separate from the marital disputes between accused No.1 and the second respondent. - 11. The issue of transfer of amount from the account of the complainant to the petitioners, at the most, can be considered as a financial transaction which is independent of the marital dispute between the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent. Mere transfer of funds from the account of the complainant to the account of the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 cannot be considered as an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 12. Reference to the statements recorded by the police would also not indicate that the transfer of Rs.1,50,000/- was on demand by the petitioners towards additional dowry or any marriage gift. In the absence of any statement linking the transfer of the amount to the petitioners from the account of the 2nd respondent, which would remotely connect the dots for drawing the penal provisions of Section 498-A IPC, no purpose would be served in continuing the case against the petitioners. 13. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the CC.No.925 of 2022 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. - 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and CC.No. 925 of 2022 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli is hereby quashed against the petitioners. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. -