IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.3949 of 2009 Between: Sajida Begum & 3 others … Petitioners And: Sadiya Begum & another .... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.3949 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in CC No.292 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, insofar as the petitioners-A.6 to A.9 is concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam against the petitioners and others, alleging the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was referred by the learned Magistrate to the Khammam II Town police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., who registered a case in Cr.No.274 of 2007 against the petitioners and others. After investigation, police filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case in CC No.292 of 2008. The petitioners herein are stated to be the sisters of A.1. 4. According to the prosecution, the marriage of A.1 with the first respondent took place on 19.10.2001 and at the time of the marriage, the father of the complainant gave cash of Rs.50,000/-, 7 tulas of gold, 250 grams of silver and other house-hold articles, worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Subsequently, on account of the harassment by the accused, father of the complainant gave a Hero-Honda Splendor Motor cycle also to A.1, which is worth Rs.48,000/- and also gave a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged that in spite of the same, the harassment of the complainant by the accused for additional dowry continued. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-A.6 to A.9 and thrust of the allegations in the complaint are directed only against other accused. 5. As seen from the complaint and also charge sheet, it is specifically alleged that A.7 and A.8 made the life of the complainant miserable within one month after the marriage and the complainant was beat by A.3 to A.7. It is further alleged that on 27.06.2007, A.3 to A.7 beat the complainant indiscriminately causing injuries. Thus, it can be seen that specific allegations prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences have been made against the petitioners-A.6 to A.9 also, besides other accused. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be ascertained only during the course of trial after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that the petitioners have all been arrested from the same address. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners have been residing at different places as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, still in view of the specific allegations contained in the complaint and charge sheet that the petitioners-A.6 to A.9 also harassed the complainant and even physically assaulted her causing injuries, it cannot be considered to be a fit case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners altogether. It is well settled principle that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with due care and caution and they cannot be invoked to thwart the prosecution, especially when specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-A.6 to A.9. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioners. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2010 bss