THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10615 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in C.C.No.446 of 2010 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the main case. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners herein, who are A2 to A4, are facing trial in C.C.No.446 of 2010 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet the petitioners along with another subjected the first respondent to cruelty for additional dowry and the first respondent has given an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- apart from gold ornaments to A1 at the time of marriage. 5. The Investigating Officer after satisfying himself with the material collected by him laid charge sheet against the petitioners and another for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of the record reveals that learned Magistrate after satisfying himself with the material available on record has taken cognizance of the offence under the Sections referred supra against the petitioners and another. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking the cognizance of offence. 6. Whether the petitioners have subjected the first respondent to cruelty or not involves complexity of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While deciding this type of petitions the Court has to take into consideration whether the allegations made in the charge sheet are prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners or not. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties to the proceedings. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners. 7. In Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions. 1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; 2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; 3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.” 8. I n Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)} and B.S. Joshi v . State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675}. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at pre trial state. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/A2 to A4 are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioners. Even if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent. 11. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 24-12-2010 and the same has been in force till date. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispense with the presence of the petitioners, who are A2 to A4 in C.C.No.446 of 2010 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore on each and every date of adjournment. However, the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required. 12. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J October 17, 2014 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10615 of 2010 October 17, 2014 Pn [1] (1977) 4 SCC 551 [2] (2011) 12 SCC 437