HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6744 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Between: Eluri Venkateswara Rao and another ….Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., rep. by PP and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6744 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against A.4 and A.5 in C.C.No.842 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. The 2nd respondent herein has lodged a private complaint before the II Additional Munisif Magistrate, Ongole against the present petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 323, 420, 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Ongole and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.316 of 2006 of I Town Police Station, Ongole and the police after investigation of the said crime has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and three others for the offences under Sections 323, 420, 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that they are only the mediators for the marriage of the 2nd respondent and they are nothing to do with the demand for the dowry made by the other accused and they are not related to the other accused who is the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. As such the charge sheet filed against them is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the allegations made in the charge sheet clearly establishes the involvement of the present petitioners for the above said offences and they are related to the other accused and as such the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings. As per the averments made in the complaint and the charge sheet, it is observed that the A.1 married to the 2nd respondent herein on 14.6.2003 at Ongole and at that time, the 2nd respondent is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Devarampadu village of Ongole Mandal and A.1 and A.3 are residing at Tenali. The 2nd Accused is residing at Hyderabad along with her husband which is contrary to the facts that the A.2 is residing with A.1 and A.3 at Tenali. After the marriage, she joined with A.1 and both of them leading their marital life happily for about 6 months. Thereafter all the accused used to harass her whenever she visits her mother-in- law’s house at Seetharamapuram, Ongole for providing additional dowry as the dowry given at the time of marriage is not sufficient and also harassed her to get cash of Rs.1.00 lakh and bring the entire salary amount from the beginning of her joining into service and she was beaten in the first week of June, 2004 indiscriminately and necked out her with a demand to get the additional dowry amount from her parents. The police during the course of investigation, examined the witnesses and found that the offences under Sections 323, 420, 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the 161 statement recorded by the police and pleaded that the respondents 4 and 5 are only related to the other accused and they were not present when the accused harassed the 2nd respondent and they only arranged the marriage of the 2nd respondent with the A.1 and therefore, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In 161 statement of 2nd respondent and her mother, have stated that in the month of June, 1st week, A.1 to A.3 along with her relatives A.4 and A.5 demanded the complainant to bring Rs.40,000/- which was agreed to be given at the time of marriage and beat her indiscriminately and driven her out of the house. Thereafter, she has telephoned to her parents and after her parents came to Tenali, A.4 and A.5 were called there and thereafter she lodged a complaint with the police. Therefore, from the averments made in the complaint, charge sheet and 161 statement, the involvement of the present petitioners is prima facie established whether they were present at the time of incident or not has to be elicited during the course of trial and at this stage as per the averments made in the complaint, charge sheet and 161 statement, the involvement of the present petitioners is prima facie established. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:07.04.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6744 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Gk.