IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6584 of 2009 Between: Smt. V. Annapurnamma … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6584 of 2009 ORDER:- This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 (for short, ‘A2’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No.773 of 2009 pending on the file of the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Whereas the petitioner is A2, the respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows: The marriage of the de facto complainant was solemnized with Manoj Kumar (A1) on 21.02.2007 as per Hindu Sampradayam at Mahabubnagar and at the time of her marriage on the demand of her mother-in-law (A2), her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 2 tulas of gold etc., as dowry. After three months of her marriage, A1 and A2 mentally and physically harassed her for bringing additional dowry of Rs.30,000/- for which many times panchayats were held in the presence of elders, but A1 and A2 did not change their attitude. Thus, A1 and A2 had committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no specific allegations which constitute the alleged offence against A2 and hence, it is a fit case to quash the entire proceedings. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has contended that the allegations made against the petitioner really constitute the alleged offence and is liable to be punished as per law and as there are no merits in the petition. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against A2, as prayed for? A perusal of the record shows that there is incriminating material against A2 with reference to demanding of dowry amount from the parents of the de facto complainant at the time of her marriage and harassment of the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-. Unless trial is conducted, the complicity of A2 cannot be decided. Therefore, I find no grounds to allow the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.12.2011 ES