IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2600 OF 2008 Between: Sri Lalam Sriranga Swamy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2600 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in M.C.No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are known to each other and petitioner No.1 used to reside in the neighbouring house of respondent No.2 at Narsipatnam village for the purpose of his education for more than 5 years. Later they both developed relation in all aspects and petitioner No.1 got bore with the companionship of respondent No.2 and left her. Later on her force and affection, petitioner No.1 made proposal before his parents and they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry. As she was unable to pay the same, she requested that she is able to pay Rs.2,00,000/- only. After sometime, petitioner No.1 accepted and asked respondent No.2 to make arrangements for marriage at Annavaram Temple and he would convince his parents after the marriage. On 09.05.2007, marriage was taken place between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 at Annavaram Temple. When petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 visited the house of petitioner No.1 for blessings of his parents, they refused to accept the marriage, abused her severely, took her inside the house, obtained her signatures on the blank papers and asked her to arrange the balance amount. On 11.05.2007, petitioner No.1 left respondent No.2 and made a false complaint against her at the instigation of the other petitioners, though he has very much love and affection towards her. Later the police came to her and took her statement. Then she obtained Anticipatory Bail in the complaint made by petitioner No.1, approached the Honourable Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam and filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against all the petitioners seeking reliefs i.e., a) To take cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. for obtaining signature on the blank papers. b) To send petitioner No.1 for counseling to the experts. c) To issue residence order to enable the aggrieved person to reside in the share house hold of the petitioners. d) For return of the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the aggrieved person. e) To grant compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental, physical, harassment and abuse made by the petitioners. f) To direct the petitioners to execute bonds for the good behavior of them over the aggrieved person. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 is not an aggrieved person as she is not the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1; that they never lived together in a house at any point of time; that there is no allegation whatsoever against petitioner No.4; and therefore, the continuation of proceedings insofar as petitioner No.4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 contended that the allegations would go to show that there was continuous harassment to respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry by all the accused; that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed at Annavaram; that they lived together for some time; and that because the dowry amount as demanded by the petitioners was not brought by respondent No.2, she was necked out from the house; that as the allegations made out a prima facie case for the alleged offences, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. The allegations in the complaint, if taken as true and correct, at this stage, made out a prima facie case, then the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the brother of petitioner No.1. Though it is contended that no marriage was performed between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 herein, at the same time, the allegations in the complaint would go to show that their marriage was performed at Annavaram Satyanarayana Swamy Temple on 09.05.2007 at 10:23 P.M. Whether it is a forcible marriage or not, as contended by the petitioners herein, cannot be decided at this stage. As seen from the allegations, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lived together in the house for some time and had sexual intercourse with each other. As the allegations made out a domestic violence against respondent No.2, the question of quashing the complaint insofar as petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are concerned does not arise. 6. Insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned, the only allegation levelled against him is that the marriage of petitioner No.4, who happened to be the younger brother of petitioner No.1, was performed about 1 ½ year prior to performing the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2/aggrieved person. So, there are absolutely no allegations insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against petitioner No.4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, the impugned proceedings against petitioner No.4 are hereby quashed, whereas the Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 15, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2600 OF 2008 July 15, 2010