THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3148 of 2007 (Dated 8-7-2010) Between: P.Koteshwari W/o G.Narender Goud R/o 2-8-205, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar And others …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3148 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by P.Koteshwari, P.Shermila and P.Prabhavathi, who are A-4 to A-6 in C.C.No.931 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein. 2. The petitioners herein are A-4 to A-6 in C.C.No.931 of 2006. The said case arises out of Crime No.148 of 2006 of Bhongir Town P.S., Nalgonda District. Nyalaptla Mallika D/o Nyalapatla Laxamaiah presented a report dated 8.9.2006 alleging that she got married to Puppala Thirumalesh S/o Yalla Goud on 01.7.2005 and that her parents gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 35 tolas of gold, 3 kgs. of silver and cash of Rs.20,000/- towards pasupu-kunkuma at the time of marriage. It is further averred in the report that her husband, her sister-in-law and other family members mentally harassed her to bring Rs.50,000/- each towards Adapadachu lanchanam. It is also stated by her in the report that her husband, her in-laws and sisters of her husband, namely, Koteswaramma, Sharmila and Prabhavathi (petitioners herein) harassed her for additional dowry. Basing on the report, a case in Crime No.148 of 2006 came to be registered. After due investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town P.S., filed charge sheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.931 of 2006. Hence this petition by A-4 to A-6 with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the report presented by the 2nd respondent and so also the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., do not disclose the place of offence, and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.931 of 2006, which arise out of Crime No.148 of 2006 are liable to be quashed. A further submission has been made that except the bald allegation against the petitioners, no specific instances of harassment have been brought out against the petitioners, and in which case, further continuance of the proceedings in C.C.No.931 of 2006 against the petitioners amount to abuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that 2nd respondent stated specific demands made by the petitioners and consequent harassments, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.148 of 2006. Translation copy of the report is placed at Page No.10 of the material papers. Relevant portion of the report needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ One month after the marriage, my husband look after me very well. After that my mother-in-law took away forcibly my 35 tulas of gold ornaments and gave it to one of her daughters called Koteshwaramma for safe custody. After lapse of one month my husband and his sister mentally started harassing me to bring Rs.50,000/- each as adapaduchu katnam. Further, my husband, in-laws, and his sisters Koteshwaramma, Sharmila, Prabhavathi harassed me for additional dowry saying that “as my father has got much properties”. After lapse of three months my husband demanded me Rs.2,00,000/- as he got a job offer in Singapore. He harassed me physically and mentally to bring the above said amount from my parents.” 7. The accusation leveled against the petitioners herein is that they harassed the defacto complainant, who has been arrayed as 2nd respondent in this criminal petition, for not bringing adapaduchu katnam of Rs.50,000/-. In view of specific instances of harassment against the petitioners, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.931 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 08-7-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3148 of 2007 (Dated 8-7-2010)