THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2629 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 289 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur. 2. The allegation is that A.1 is husband, A.2 and A.3 are parents-in-law, of the first respondent. The petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2. Marriage between A.1 and first respondent was performed on 28.8.1998, and on demand of A.2 to A.4, an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs was paid apart from 45 tulas of gold ornaments. Two children were born to them out of wedlock. In the year 2001, A.1 to A.3 started demanding additional dowry and an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid. Thereafter, A.1 to A.4 demanded additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs. On 28.3.2001, the first respondent left company of A.1 and started living separately along with children. She filed a case for maintenance, while A.1 filed case for divorce. After some time, both parties compromised and started living at Kadiri and later shifted to Bangalore. In January,2007, A.2 to A.4 visited Bangalore and demanded additional dowry. On 24.6.2007, A.2 to A.4 visited Bangalore for reconciliation, and at that time, A.3 stabbed first respondent twice at the instance of A.2 while A.2 pushed her and the petitioner encouraged the other accused and abused him. On 10.12.2007, A.1 to A.4 came to the house of first respondent and demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/A.4 is maternal uncle of the first respondent/complainant and that there is no specific allegation against him in the charge sheet, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of process of court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the allegations made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged against the petitioner, and therefore there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. When the allegations in the charge sheet do not make a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then only the question of quashing the same would arise. 6. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. defines ‘cruelty’, which reads: “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 7. The petitioner herein is A.4 in the C.C. At this stage, the allegations made in the complaint cannot be tested whether they are correct or not. There is allegation in the charge sheet that on two occasions, the petitioner along with two others went to the house of parents of the first respondent/complainant at Bangalore and demanded additional dowry. Whether that allegation is correct or not, cannot be tested in this petition. No doubt, the petitioner is maternal uncle, but the allegation against him is that he along with two other accused demanded additional dowry, which is an unlawful demand. Any unlawful demand is ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. The allegations made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, and so, the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arise. 8. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------- 8.7.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2629 OF 2008 Date: 8.7.2010 Between: L.Shankar Reddy …Petitioner And Lingala Lakshmi Sarada & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2629 of 2008 8.7.2010