HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6754 OF 2009 DATED.27-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 (For short, ‘A-2 to A-4’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.8 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 384 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-2 to A-4, the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : A-3 is the wife and A-1 and A-4 are the sons of A-2. The complainant and A-1 are known to each other as A-1 resided for five years in the neighbouring house of the complainant for his education and also for other works. A-1 after vacating the rented house also used to visit the complainant’s house on the guise of visiting the house of the local M.L.A. situated in the nearby vicinity. There was a distant relationship in between the complainant and A-1 prior to their marriage. While the complainant was pursuing her intermediate education in Narsipatnam in the year 1994, A-1 proposed to marry her, she initially refused his offer but due to his repeated requests and also on his promise to marry her, she accepted his offer automatically. Subsequently, the father of the complainant took voluntary retirement and joined in the Irrigation Department as Mazdoor. Thereafter, A-1 used to visit the office of the complainant with his friends and other villagers. She also used to visit the house of A-1 during holidays as the wife of A-1. That affair is also known to the general public of Mondikandi village, their relatives and friends. Thus, in view of the trust and confidence created by A-1, the complainant used to move freely with him. While so, A-1 proposed to have sex with the complainant, though she refused at first, she agreed for it later and had sexual intercourse with him on several occasions. Subsequently, A-1 vexed with her companionship started abusing her in all ways. Immediately, observing the change in the attitude of A-1, she repeatedly demanded him to marry her, for which he stated that his parents were disagreeing for their marriage in view of difference in their financial statuses, by reason of which her parents were not in a position to pay him huge dowry. Subsequently, the parents of the complainant approached the elders of A-1, who asked to pay a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to perform the marriage of the complainant with A-1. As there was no other go, the parents of the complainant accepted to pay the dowry amount but insisted for 2 years time to do so. While the things stood thus, the complainant approached A-1 and requested him to accept for the marriage claiming that she was in a position to pay only Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, which A-1 accepted and then A-1 made arrangements for their marriage at Annavaram temple assuring that his parents would get convinced after their marriage and accordingly after paying Rs.2,00,000/- to A-1, their marriage was performed on 09-05- 2009 at 09-00 p.m. Further some villagers of Mondikandi, who were present in order to attend some other marriage, also witnessed the marriage between them and blessed them. Subsequently, they went to the house of A-1 for the blessings of the parents of A-1 and A-1 tried to explain the reasons for their marriage and also informed that the complainant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to him. Thereafter all the accused after attending a meeting, refused to accept their marriage and so also abused the complainant and obtained her signatures forcibly on blank papers. A-1 acted as per the wishes of the other accused. Subsequently, after obtaining the signatures of the complainant on blank papers under the threat of death A-2 to A-4 necked out her demanding to return only with the balance dowry amount otherwise threatening that they would perform second marriage to A-1. Thereafter, the complainant and A-1 went to her parents house and on the next day i.e. on 11-05-2007 A-1 left her parents house assuring that he would convince his parents. But on the next day the complainant came to learn through media that A-1 filed a false case against her and others of kidnap and forcible marriage with the complainant. Immediately the complainant informed the concerned Police authorities about the facts and the illegal attitude of all the accused in demanding the additional dowry by way of telegrams but no action was taken against the accused by the police. Subsequently, she obtained anticipatory bail, on merits, in the case filed by A-1 from Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Hence, A-1 to A-4 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-4 that the police conducted necessary investigation and filed report in the case treating the case as false and on the other hand, on conducting necessary investigation on the report given by A-1 that the case was registered against her for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 365, 384, 342, 324, 506, 201 and 109 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam and there are no allegations of harassment for money and also coercion against A-1 to A-4 and there is nothing to prosecute them and hence the proceedings in the Calender Case No.8 of 2009 are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-state has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. I have gone through the record. There are specific allegations against A-1 to A-4 with regards to the said offences. So, unless the trial of the case is conducted the complicity of A-1 to A-4 cannot be decided in this case. The other factors narrated by the learned counsel for A-2 to A-4 are not suffice at this stage to come to a conclusion that the case of the complainant is false and as such I do not find any merits in the case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of A-2 to A-4 before the trial Court is dispensed with till the commencement of trial, unless their presence is required otherwise before the trial Court. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:27-12-2011. Dsh. 372 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6754 OF 2009 December, 27, 2011 DSH