THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1418 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.3 in C.C.No.513 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, approached this Court and filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the said proceedings against him. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between A-1 and the second respondent herein was performed as per hindu customs on 05.04.2007. After the marriage, the husband, who is arrayed as A-1, used to harass the second respondent herein by way of beating her for the sake of dowry. It is also stated that A-2 and A-3 have instigated A-1 with regard to harassment of the second respondent herein. A further allegation as per the charge sheet is that A-1 developed illicit intimacy with A-4. However, there was a settlement and the settlement deed was executed on 09.07.2008 to the effect that he will cancel his illegal contacts with A-4. But, A-1 continued the said illegal contact with A-4 and started beating the second respondent. Hence, she gave a report and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.157 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 read with 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sambealli Police Station, against four persons including the petitioner herein, which was taken on file by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoti, Kadapa District as C.C.No.513 of 2010. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, that there is nothing in the charge sheet insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and according to him, unnecessarily the petitioner herein is implicated as if he is responsible for the alleged dowry harassment, etc. and hence, prays to quash the said proceedings against the petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner who is arrayed as A-3 was instrumental in the alleged harassment on the second respondent, and at his instance, A-1 developed illicit intimacy with A-4 and in that context, he has drawn my attention to para No.6 of the charge sheet and the same reads as under: - “After some days, after the panchayat the accused No.3 was invited A-1 and A-4 for the opening ceremony of his house and encouraged the illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-4. L.W-1 came to know and questioned accused No.3 the same. Then the accused No.3 replied that as accused No.1 was married L.W-1 without dowry as L.W-1 is working as a doctor and L.W-1 has to pay the monthly salary and accused No.4 is providing the amounts to them and they demanded 10 lakhs as additional amount to cancel the illicit intimacy.” From the above, it is clear that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and hence, in my considered view, it is not a fit case to quash the said proceedings initiated against him. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a resident of Madanapalle, Chittoor District, whereas the case is pending trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, Kadapa District and as such, the petitioner is finding it difficult to appear before the Court below on each and every date of adjournment. May be, it is true. But, it is needless to observe that there are several provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code which permit the petitioner to absent with the permission of the Court, and the petitioner herein can avail any of such opportunities that are provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 18th January 2011 DR