THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 388 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in crime no.60 of 2007 of Guntakal I Town police station, Anantapur district. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that marriage of complainant with A.1 took place on 5.8.2004 as per the customs of Christian community. At the time of marriage, father of the complainant gave Rs.3,00,000/- cash as dowry and 10 tulas of gold and presented a sum of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a two wheeler. They settled at Guntakal. The transaction took place in the presence of A.2 and A.3, who are family members of A.1 and with whom A.1 was residing prior to the marriage. After marriage, the complainant went to Ontimitta where A.2 was residing and working as Health Assistant in Government Hospital and A.1 was also residing with him. Immediately after 10 days, A.1 to A.3 started demanding Rs.2.00 lakhs and accordingly the complainant paid the amount. In a galata took place in Gollaladoddi village when A.1 demanded amount, the complainant sustained bleeding injures, and at the intervention of village elders, A.1 went away. In the month of May, 2005, the complainant went to Ontimitta, where A.2 and A.3 tortured her and demanded to get Rs.2.00 lakhs as extra dowry as they were having financial problems. They instigated A.1 and encouraged him to behave cruelly and demanded savings of the complainant. A.2 also abused parents of the complainant and demanded extra dowry and asked to them to leave. A.2 andA.3 again demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs and stated that if the amount is paid, they would set right the life of complainant with A.1. Hence, the complaint. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel representing the Public Prosecutor. 4. 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 complaint do not make a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, then only the question of quashing the same would arise. 5. The petitioners herein are A.2 and A.3 in the crime. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that immediately after 10 days, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the complainant demanding Rs.2.00 lakhs as additional dowry, and in the month of May, 2005, when the complainant went to Ontimitta, A.2 and A.3 (petitioners herein) tortured the complainant to get extra dowry since they were facing some financial problems. It is also alleged that A.1 to A.3 telephoned father of the complainant stating that they would desert the complainant if their desire is not fulfilled. At this stage, the allegations made in the complaint cannot be tested whether they are correct or not. Any unlawful demand is ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, these allegations would prima facie show that there was unlawful demand and so, the question of quashing further proceedings in the criminal case does not arise. 6. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------- 15.7.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 388 OF 2008 Date: 15.7.2010 Between: B.Nagabhunam, s/o. Chennakesavulu & another …Petitioners And State (S.I. of Police,), Guntakal I Town p.s., Anantapur district, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 388 of 2008 15.7.2010