HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 6116 OF 2007 DATED: 15.07.2010 BETWEEN: Manda Nageswara Rao and others .. Petitioners And M.Arunakumari and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 6116 OF 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in DDR No.1656-A/CC 110 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Arukuvalley. I have heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. The first petitioner is the husband of the complainant (first respondent), the second petitioner is the father, the third petitioner is the mother and the fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner. The brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition may be stated as follows: The marriage of the first respondent (complainant) was performed with the first petitioner on 22.04.2004 as per Hindu rites and caste custom. According to the first respondent, as could be seen from the complaint filed before the magistrate that at the time of marriage the father of the complainant gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- and presented 12 tulas of gold. The marriage was consummated and while the first respondent became pregnant, all the petitioners started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. A panchayat was convened and the first petitioner did not oblige the advice given by the elders at panchayat and continued to harass her for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and sent her to parental house. It is a matter of record that prior to the complaint filed by the first respondent, the first petitioner filed O.P.No.7 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed. After filing of the said O.P., the first respondent/wife filed Maintenance Case No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Arukuvalley under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and maintenance was granted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this case is filed only to harass the petitioners as they filed O.P. At the time of filing of the petition, there is no allegation of demanding dowry by the petitioners at any point of time. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to examine the merits of the case. This Court is of the view that the allegations mentioned in the compliant constitutes an offence against the petitioners as alleged by the complainant. If any such offence is not made out, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can quash the proceedings at the threshold itself. In the instant case, it is clearly mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned magistrate that all the petitioners subjected the first respondent to cruelty by demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry. On the aforesaid analysis, absolutely I am of the view that no case is made out to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:15.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 6116 OF 2007 DATED: 15.07.2010