THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11067 of 2014 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.135 of 2013 of Women Police Station, Begumpet (N/Z), Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 312 and 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 66-A, 67 and 67-A of Information and Technology Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent lodged second complaint at Balki Rural Police Station, Karnataka, which was subsequently transferred to Women Police Station, Begumpet (N/Z), Hyderabad. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the main case. This Court can quash the criminal proceedings while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. do not constitute any offence; (2) if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner; (3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; (4) if the registration of the case and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law; or (5) to secure the ends of justice. The second respondent is the de facto complainant and the petitioners are A1, A2 and A3 in Crime No.135 of 2013. A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet, who in turn registered a case Crime No.122 of 2012 under Section 498-A IPC against petitioners Nos.1 and 2. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 498-A IPC. The record further reveals that the second respondent lodged two complaints against petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In the second complaint, the second respondent has shown the third petitioner as A3. As per the allegations made the complaint, petitioners harassed the second respondent for additional dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioners sent SMSs to second respondent’s mobile threatening her. The court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab[1] and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [2], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Station House Officer, Women P.S., Begumpet, may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation. Taking into consideration the registration of two FIRs against the same persons (except third petitioner), the Station House Officer, Women P.S., Begumpet, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.135 of 2013 till completion of investigation or filing of final report. With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 18, 2014. YS [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604