IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2552 OF 2009 Between: 1. B. Ramakrishna Bharadwaj 2. B. Seetha Ramchander Rao 3. B. Bharathi ..... Petitioners AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Smt. B. Aruna Devi ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.13 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar. 2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that the second respondent married the first petitioner on 09.06.2005 at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam, Karimnagar. At the time of the marriage of the second respondent, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/- of dowry along with clothes, gold ornaments, other valuables and household articles. After the marriage, the first petitioner lived happily with the second respondent till the first petitioner went to United States of America in the year 2006. In March, 2007, the first petitioner called the second respondent to America. Some days thereafter, the first petitioner started harassing the second respondent. In connection with the operation of his mother, the first petitioner has returned to Hyderabad in the month of August, 2007, leaving the second respondent in his sister’s house at America. The sister of the first petitioner all of a sudden asked the second respondent to go back to Hyderabad without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the second respondent came back to Hyderabad and lived with the first petitioner upto 28.09.2007. On 28.09.2007, the first petitioner went to United States of America asking the second respondent to stay with her father and assuring that he would take her to America in four or five months. But surprisingly, in the month of February, 2008, the first petitioner came back to Hyderabad and issued a divorce notice to the second respondent. He filed O.P.No.49 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for dissolution of marriage. The second respondent also filed M.C.No.27 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no domestic violence at all attributed in so far as Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned; that they are residing at Nalgonda; that the third petitioner was almost bed ridden; that the third petitioner was unable to move from the bed, and therefore, the continuation of proceedings is nothing but the abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners; that they were harassing the second respondent to bring additional dowry, which is a domestic violence, and therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint and other material filed in support of the case do not make out a prima facie case, then only the question of quashing the proceedings in D.V.C. arises. 6. The allegation against the first petitioner is that he was not taking the second respondent to America after the marriage and that he was not liking the second respondent and that he asked the second respondent to go to India. Sofar as allegations levelled against the petitioners are that they were harassing the second respondent to bring additional dowry, and therefore, the second respondent sought protection for such harassment. Therefore, the allegations made out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings in the D.V.C. does not arise. 7. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Magistrate was insisting the presence of the third petitioner on each and every adjournment, which may not be required. Considering the fact that she was almost bed ridden after the operation and in view of the fact that Advocate is already appointed on her behalf to defend the case, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispense with her presence. The Advocate can appear on behalf of the third petitioner on each and every adjournment. 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 14th October, 2009. KL