IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4332 of 2009 Between: Maganti Padma, W/o. Praveen ..... PETITIONER AND Vempalli Radhika, W/o. Vinod Goud and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4332 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash DVC.No.2/2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, Nizamabad District. 2. It is alleged that on 14.07.2008, marriage of the 1st respondent was performed in Tirupathi with the brother of the petitioner, that before her marriage, he was engaged to a girl belonging to Ramadugu; that later, the husband of the 1st respondent expressed his unwillingness to marry that girl and the engagement was cancelled by paying damages to them; that the 1st respondent husband was cordial with her when they stayed in Tirupathi for two days; that after returning from Tirupathi the 1st respondent’s mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and sister-in- law (petitioner herein) harassed by saying that the 1st respondent does not suit their status and that had their son is married to others, they would have got Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry and with that money the husband of the petitioner can be sent to foreign countries for better jobs. It is further alleged that they harassed the 1st respondent to leave the house voluntarily, and suggested her to get married to others by giving dowry that the respondent was not allowed to speak with her husband and she was not allowed to spend time with her husband and she was not allowed to lead marital life with her husband; that the 1st respondent was always forced to stay with mother-in-law; that whenever the respondent wears good clothes, the petitioner herein used to irritate her by saying as to where she was going; that the petitioner herein used to push the 1st respondent out of the house by saying 'get out of the house'; that if the 1st respondent leave them they would perform another marriage to the husband of the 1st respondent or otherwise live like a servant in the house, and frequently the petitioner and mother-in-law used to harass the 1st respondent saying that she had no other alternative but to live in a corner of the house; that on every day the 1st respondent was made to cry and switched on the speaker phone so as to make the father of the 1st respondent to hear the cries of the 1st respondent; that unable to bear the problems, the 1st respondent called her father to take her; on 30.12.2008 the 1st respondent father came to see her and the in-laws abused the 1st respondent physically by beating her and abused her in filthy language and necked out of the house and that unable to see the torture of his daughter, the father of the respondent took her to his house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that marriage of the petitioner with her husband was performed on 03.08.2007 at Nizamabad and thereafter, she started living with her husband at Bangalore, where her husband is having a regular employment and no specific allegation is levelled against the present petitioner and hence, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that as on the date of incident the petitioner was residing at Nizamabad and that she along with other accused started harassing her to bring Rs.20,00,000/-, so that the husband of the petitioner can be sent to the foreign country for securing a job and, therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Hence, she prays to dismiss the same. 6. There cannot be any dispute under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code. It is also equally well settled fact that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. 7. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that the present petitioner along with other accused were harassing the 1st respondent herein to bring Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry, so that they can send the husband of the petitioner to foreign country, and that they were not allowing the 1st respondent to lead a marital life with her husband. It is also alleged that on 30.12.2008, when the father of the 1st respondent came to the house of the 1st respondent to see her, the petitioner was also harassing her. Whether the allegations are correct or false, or whether the petitioner was residing along with her husband at Bangalore, soon after her marriage or not, are the questions of fact, which has to be decided during the trial only. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint prima facie show that there was harassment to the 1st respondent. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J October 8, 2009 MD/DRK