THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2839 OF 2008. DATED: 09-10-2009. Between: 1.Mohd. Shakir and three others … Petitioners/ A2 to A5 and 1. State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents/Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2839 OF 2008. ORDER: This Criminal Petition by the petitioners-A2 to A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.90 of 2008 of Kadiri Town Police Station, Anantapur District. 2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 148 IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibiton Act, alleging that her marriage with A1 was performed on 28-04- 2006 at East Oakvil, Canada and thereafter reception was arranged at Kadiri town on 12-08-2006. Immediately, after the marriage, the accused demanded the complainant to bring Rs.20,00,000/- towards additional dowry, failing which, they will ruin the matrimonial life of the complainant. But, the complainant expressed her inability. It is further alleged that on 24-03-2008, when the complainant along with her parents, brother and elder Pathon Nooran went to the house of the accused at Kadiri, all the accused objected for the entry of the complainant and other relatives and informed her that as a condition precedent for leading a marital life, she shall dispose of all her properties, resign her job and come back to Kadiri and build a building on Ac.2.00 of land belonging to her and her parents. Hence, the present complaint was filed, which was referred to the police for investigation and the police registered a case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as the marriage of the 2nd respondent herein with A1 was a love marriage, question of demanding any dowry does not arise, that the petitioners 3 and 4, who are brother and sister of the 1st petitioner are residing at Bangalore since a long time and therefore, the allegations against them are false, that the petitioners are nothing to do with the misunderstandings between the complainant and her husband and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the allegations in the complaint would go to show that the complainant was harassed by making unlawful demand, that on two occasions, the accused tried to kill the complainant, that since the allegations made out prima facie case of the offences alleged, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 5. There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out prima facie case of the offence alleged, then only question of quashing the proceedings arises. This being matrimonial jurisdiction, the Court has to see whether the un-controverted allegations made in the complaint made out prima facie cognizable offence or not against the petitioners. If cognizable offence is made out, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation and that statutory duty cannot be curtailed. The factual aspects of the case cannot be decided and determined exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless those factual aspects are admitted by both the parties. Harassment by the husband or relative of the husband for property or valuable security is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498- A IPC. The allegation is that the accused demanded the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- when a reception was arranged at Kadiri in the month of August, 2006. It is further alleged that on one occasion, the 1st petitioner tried to squeeze the neck of the complainant with an intention to kill her at the instigation of other accused. Whether the allegations are correct or not, the same cannot be decided at this stage as it is a matter of investigation by the police. Similarly, whether petitioners 3 and 4 are residing at Bangalore or not at the time of the incident is a question of fact, which has to be decided at the time of trial or during the course of investigation. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Observations, if any, made in this Criminal Petition are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 09-10-2009 Hsd