IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10096 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Thade Harikiran S/o. Late Jaya Narasimhulu and Others …. Petitioners AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10096 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.206 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District arising out of Crime No.17 of 2009 of Pulivendula Police Station, Kadapa District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P. Act). 2. Accused No.1 Thade Hari Kiran – petitioner No.1 herein, is the husband of the de facto complainant Ramanji Ahalya Devi – respondent No.2 herein and Accused Nos.2 to 6 – Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the relatives of petitioner No.1. 3. The brief facts are that the marriage of respondent No.2 was celebrated about 1½ years back with petitioner No.1. At the time of the marriage, parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.4 lakhs and 15 tulas of gold towards dowry to the petitioner No.1. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 sold the gold jewellery of respondent No.2 and started harassing her for additional dowry. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 supported petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.5 misbehaved with respondent No.2 and when she complained the same to petitioner No.2, he supported petitioner No.5 and suspected her character and confined her in a room and locked the door. Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 threatened respondent No.2 for demand of additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- for purchasing of a motor cycle and petitioner No.1 drove her from his house. Then, respondent No.1 came to her parents house at Pulivendla and lodged a complaint with the Police of Pulivendla against the petitioners. The Police of Pulivendla registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2009 under Sections 498-A and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against all the petitioners. 4. Heard. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order under this code. If the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. The allegation against the petitioners is that all the petitioners harassed respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- for purchasing a motor cycle. Harassment by husband or relative of the husband of a woman for any property or valuable security is a cruelty within the meaning of explanation to Section 498-A IPC. 6. In view of the fact that the wife (respondent No.2) has categorically stated in the report as well as at the time when she was examined by the police that all the accused (petitioners) were harassing her to bring additional dowry, which amounts to cruelty and hence, prima facie case is made out. Therefore, question of quashing the present proceedings does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 02, 2009. KTL