THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2525 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 2. The 1st petitioner is the father-in-law and the 2nd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant (2nd respondent). Complainant (2nd respondent) is the wife of Jagan Mohan Reddy, a practicing Advocate at the High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The marriage of the complainant (2nd respondent) was performed with the said Jagan Mohan Reddy on 14-12-1997. The marriage was consummated and a daughter and son were born to the complainant (2nd respondent). In the meanwhile, the complainant (2nd respondent), who passed M.Sc. B.Ed., was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and since then she has been working in the Kurnool District. 3. It is submitted by the complainant (2nd respondent) in the report given to the Station House Officer, II Town police station, Kurnool that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.4,00,000/-, Gold weighing 30 Tulas and other articles as dowry. According to her, on 11-07-2002, her husband issued a legal notice seeking divorce and thereafter, their parents and elders pacified the matter and made the couple to live together. It was further alleged in the report that her husband has been taking away her entire salary and demanding money. She borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the bank and gave the said amount to her husband. It is stated that her husband spent away the entire amount for vices. She further alleged that the petitioners, who are in-laws, quarrelled with her on the ground that she had to bring some electronic goods towards dowry and on their instigation, her husband beat her. Thereupon, the complainant (2nd respondent) withdrew an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the Savings account and R.D. account and purchased some articles and gave the said articles to the accused. 4. It is the version of the complainant (2nd respondent) that one year prior to the filing of the petition, the petitioners herein and her husband compelled her to obtain loan and thereafter relying on the words of the petitioners herein, her husband beat her and confined her in the kitchen and released gas. Thereafter, she raised cries and the neighbours arrived there and released her from the kitchen. She stated in the complaint that all the accused demanded her to bring money and harassed and beat her and sent her away from their house. Moreover, on 03-03-2007, while she was at her parents’ house the petitioners and her husband came there and beat her with hands, kicked her and pushed on the ground that she did not bring money. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are old aged and the complainant (2nd respondent) admittedly has been working as a Teacher in Kurnool District since 1998. Therefore, these petitioners harassing her with a demand to bring the amounts does not arise and it is only invented for the purpose of lodging the case. 6. However, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, it has been clearly mentioned therein that even after the complainant (2nd respondent) joined in the Teacher job and working away from Hyderabad, either she used to come to Hyderabad in the weekends or her husband and the petitioners used to come to the place where she was working. Therefore, merely because the complainant (2nd respondent) was working as a Teacher away from Hyderabad, it cannot be said that there is no occasion for the petitioners to subject her to harassment. In any event, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the truth or otherwise of the incidents alleged. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners also in the commission of the offence alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioners. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered view that absolutely no case is made out to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier by this Court is hereby vacated. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 09th July, 2010 Tsy