THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1943 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 330 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna district. The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.5. 2. The allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that marriage of second respondent/complainant was performed with A.1 about 5 years prior to lodging the complaint and at the time of marriage, parents of the complainant gave Rs.2,50,000/- cash and 15 sovereigns of gold to A.2 and A.3. After the marriage, the couple lived happily for some months. Previously, A.1 and A.2 used to run a chit fund business at Koneru centre, Machilipatnam, and as they sustained loss in that business, they were harassing the complainant both physically and mentally for additional dowry. Father of the complainant gave an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards additional dowry. Even thereafter, the accused did not change their attitude. On 22.5.2008, A.1 to A.5 harassed the complainant and beat her with hands. Though parents of the complainant tried to settle the matter, the accused did not change their attitude. On 19.6.2008, the accused demanded additional dowry and beat the complainant with hands. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except the statement of the complainant/wife, who is interested witness, there is no other material to connect the accused with the crime; that there was a delay of more than two months in lodging the complaint and that the complaint of the defacto complainant is contradictory to the statement given to police and therefore he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations in the charge sheet would clearly go to show that there was an unlawful demand, and as a prima facie case is made out, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. When the allegations in the charge sheet along with the statement of the witnesses recorded by police, made a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then the question of quashing the case does not arise. 6. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. defines ‘cruelty’, which reads: “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 7. There is specific allegation levelled against all the petitioners/accused that on 19.6.2008, all the accused demanded additional dowry and they also beat her with hands in the presence of two other witnesses, which is, prima facie, cruelty within the meaning of explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. 8. With regard to the contention of delay in lodging the complaint, mere delay in lodging the complaint by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused or quash the proceedings at this stage. That may be one circumstance which can be taken into consideration along with other evidence after trial. 9. With regard to the inconsistencies in the allegations in F.I.R. and statements of witnesses, that aspect viz. inconsistencies, if any, in the statements at two different stages, has to be explained by the witness during her examination, and the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings. 10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that except the statement of the second respondent/complainant, who is interested witness, there is no other material. Merely on the ground that the second respondent is an interested witnesses, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 11. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------- 3.9.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1943 OF 2009 Date: 3.9.2010 Between: Karicherla Ramesh & others …Petitioners And State of A.P. through Balanagar p.s. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1943 of 2009 3.9.2010