HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4972 OF 2008 DATED.14-10-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘The Accused’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in F.I.R. No.315 of 2008 pending on the file of Hanmkonda P.S. Warangal District, registered for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (In short, ‘The Act’). 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Accused, the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the De-facto complainants in the F.I.R. No.315 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed here. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : One Peddi Harikrishna, son of the Petitioner was given in marriage performed on 18-11-2005 to one Nandi Swathi @ Bhavya, daughter of the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 and at the time of the marriage an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.5,000/- towards ‘Adapadachu Katnam’ were given to the Accused. After the marriage, the couple started leading their conjugal life separately at Hyderabad. Subsequent to the marriage, on the demand of the Petitioner, a two- wheeler, gold ornaments and other household articles were given by the Respondents to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondents requested the Petitioner and his son to transfer the dowry amount in the name of his daughter but the Petitioner put a deaf ear to their requests and also did not hand over the dowry amount to his daughter. While the things stood like that, on 04-03-2008 the said Harikrishna and Swathi died issueless in a motor accident at Pembarthy village of Jangeon Mandal, Warangal District. After the incident, the Petitioner without any intimation to the Respondents vacated the house of the couple at Hyderabad and took away all the belongings of the deceased couple such as gold, cloths and other valuable articles. Coming to know about the acts of the Petitioner, the Respondents requested the Petitioner to return the dowry amount but the Petitioner failed to repay the same. Having left with no other option, the Respondents filed private complaint before the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal and the learned Magistrate endorsed the same to the Hanmkonda P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for necessary investigation in the matter. Hence, the Petitioner is liable to be punished for the alleged offence. 4. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is as follows : During the life time of the son-in-law and daughter of the Respondents there was no demand to return the dowry amount and in fact immediately after the death of the couple i.e. on 04- 03-2008 the Respondents went to the Hyderabad, took away all the belongings of the deceased couple without any piece of information to the Petitioner and enjoyed the same and thereafter not satisfied with the belongings of the deceased couple started to harass the Petitioner, even though he was in grief and lost support due to the sudden death of his son and daughter-in-law at his old age, to return the dowry amount threatening him in his day to day affairs, for which the Petitioner got filed O.S. No.618 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal seeking for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction in an Interlocutory Application filed therein and as a counterblast to O.S. No.618 of 2008, the Respondents got filed O.S. No.399 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for the return of alleged dowry amount and the same was pending. Subsequently, the Respondents also filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal for compensation on account of the death of the deceased couple without any piece of information to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Respondents failing in their attempts got filed this false criminal case against the Petitioner only to harass the Petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is not tenable and as such it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the F.I.R. as pleaded? 6. It is emphatical that there is no basis to say that the same dispute was raised and any legal action has been taken in the matter till the death of the deceased on 04-03-2008 from the date of their marriage i.e. 18-11-2005. It is not the claim of the Respondents that there is documentary evidence in that context. Therefore, it clearly appears that the same dispute was raised after the death of the deceased only. Under those circumstances no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the Petitioner for the alleged offence. In other words, there is no prima-facie material to prosecute the petitioner accordingly and it is only an abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in F.I.R. No.315 of 2008 pending on the file of Hanmkonda P.S. Warangal District. 5 __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated.14-10-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4972 OF 2008 October, 14, 2011 DSH