IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2355 OF 2009 Between: Dodda Brahmananda Reddy and others .....PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2355 OF 2009 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/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.50 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili. 2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the marriage between A1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant was solemnized on 11.05.2006. After the marriage, both the spouse led their marital life for some time at the house of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 at Markapur and later they shifted their family to Hyderabad, where A1 was working. Prior to that, when A1 worked in Agra, A2 to A6 harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry through telephone. Respondent No.2 informed the same to her father and he gave Rs.3,40,000/- through a Demand Draft. While the spouse lived at Hyderabad, all the petitioners along with A1 use to harass and subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty by confining her in a room and beating her with pipes. On 24.11.2008, A1 took respondent No.2 to her village Meerjapeta, dropped her there and assaulted her mother and father. Then the neighbours intervened and pacified the matter. On 25.11.2008, respondent No.2 gave complaint, basing on which police registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2008 under Section 498A I.P.C. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners; that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners; that therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that it is specifically stated in the charge sheet that all the accused were harassing respondent No.2/de facto complainant for additional dowry; that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. If the allegations in the charge sheet made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arises. 6. Husband or relative of husband coercing the wife or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or for valuable security is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. 7. The allegation in the charge sheet would go to show that all the petitioners were harassing respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry. Whether that allegation is true or not has to tested or decided during the course of enquiry. But the present allegation shows that all the petitioners harassed respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 12, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2355 OF 2009 August 12, 2010