IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2080 OF 2009 Between: Vanam Kistaiah and others .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2080 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2009 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar. 2. The allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that the marriage of respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized with A1 on 17.02.2006 at Bhagyanagar Function Hall, opposite SIRIS Company, L.B. Nagar, in the presence of independent witness/LW.4 and other elders. At the time of marriage, LW.2, father of complainant, gave 20 tolas of gold and Rs.3,00,000/- cash to A1 as dowry. After the marriage, complainant and A1 took a rented house at P & T Colony, Saroor Nagar, started their marital life and A1 looked the complainant well for one month. Thereafter, A1 started harassing the complainant, both physically and mentally, to bring additional dowry from her parents. After six months of marriage, the complainant and A1 shifted their residence to RCI quarters, Vigyanakancha, Hyderabad, and at present they were residing there. When the complainant visited to her in-laws house at Nalgonda, all the accused started harassing the complainant, both physically and mentally, by abusing her in filthy language for the reason that she gave birth to a female baby. A1 while going to job used to keep the complainant in the quarter by putting bolt from outside and also not allowed her to speak with neighbours. The complainant informed the same to her parents, for which on 07.06.2006, a panchayat was held in the presence of independent witness/LW.4 and other elders and in the said panchayat, A1 executed an agreement letter agreeing to look after the complainant well. But, after that also, all the accused continued to harass the complainant for additional dowry. Hence, the charge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.3/A4 is an employee residing at Shapurnagar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District; that she has nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of A1 and respondent No.2; that therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that it is alleged in the charge sheet that all the petitioners were harassing respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry; that a prima facie case is made out against all the petitioners and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. If the allegations in the charge sheet made out a prima facie case of the offence alleged, then the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arise. 6. No doubt, any unlawful demand made by the husband or relative of husband to the wife coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. But, at the same time, there must be some material to show that petitioner No.3 was residing along with her parents or she had occasion to meet respondent No.2. A1 is working as a Scientist at Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, whereas petitioner No.3 is a Government Employee residing at Veena Meadows Residency, Shapurnagar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District. So, unless it is specifically stated that on what date petitioner No.3 allegedly demanded respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry, it cannot be said that she committed an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The police had shown the address of petitioner No.3 as a resident of Shapurnagar and she is residing with her husband and family. In such a case, there was no occasion for her to go to her parents house or to the house of A1 and respondent No.2, when they both resided together prior to the offence in question. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that petitioner No.3 visited the house of A1 and respondent No.2 and harassed her. Therefore, even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true or correct, at this stage, it is absurd that petitioner No.3 demanded additional dowry, since she is admittedly living separately with her husband by working in a Government Department. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.3 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 7. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, in view of the fact that there are some allegations levelled against them that they have demanded respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry, when she visited their house at Nalgonda, a prima facie case is made out against them. Therefore, the question of quashing the charge sheet against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 does not arise. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition has to be partly allowed quashing the proceedings insofar as petitioner No.3/A4 is concerned. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2009 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, against petitioner No.3/A4 only. However, it is made clear that observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this case and uninfluenced by any of the observations in this order, the trial Court shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the case is of 2009, the trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the case at an early date subject to part heard and other old cases. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 13, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2080 OF 2009 August 13, 2010