HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7392 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A/2 and A.3 in CC No.592 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Cyberabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, police registered a case in Cr.No.115 of 2009 for the offences under section 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 and their son-A.1, who is the husband of the complainant for the above said offences and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.592 of 2009. 4. The marriage of the complainant with A.1 was performed on 19.10.2008 and shortly, thereafter, there has been estrangement between the parties on account of the matrimonial dispute. According to the complainant, at the time of the marriage, her parents gave 22 tulas of gold, 1 kg silver and Rs.6 lakhs for marriage expenses and the same was received by the accused before the friends and relatives. It is alleged that even at the time of wedding ceremony on 19.10.2008 there was unpleasant scenes created by A.1 to A.3 and the marriage was performed with lot of tension and during nuptials there were quarrels and tension between A.1 and the complainant. 5. Specific allegation of physical assault by A.1 against the complainant has been made in the complaint and the charge sheet. Insofar as the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 are concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner-A.2 instigated and encouraged A.1 to beat the complainant. It is further alleged that A.2 and A.3 have demanded the complainant’s mother to pay cash in lieu of flat as promised so that they can purchase a flat in the location of their choice and the complainant’s mother expressed her inability to give money. It is further alleged that when the complainant’s mother arranged for rental accommodation at Tolichowki, A.1 to A.3 did not approve of the same and A.1 beat the complainant and threw her out of the house and she had to spend whole night in the verandah. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A.3 has been working as Manager in Taher Ali Industries & Projects (P) Ltd in Madhya Pradesh at the relevant time and that he was no way connected with the alleged instances. In support of the same, the petitioner filed certificate issued by the said company to the effect that A.3 was working at Kishangunj in Mandha Pradesh since 03.09.2007 onwards. May be the petitioner-A.3 was employed at Kishangunj, but the complaint and charge sheet would disclose that he too made demand for dowry and received the same and not satisfied with the amount given, demand for additional dowry was made and demand for flat was also made and when the complainant sent her brother to get the jewellery from the house of accused, A.1 to A.3 refused to hand over the gold and silver articles or the money. 7. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that A.1 to A.3 have been harassing the complainant from the date of marriage for additional dowry and she was subjected to physical and mental torture by them, for not fulfilling their demand. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. As the complaint and charge sheet discloses specific allegations prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, including the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is considered not a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 in CC No.592 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Cyberabad. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.12.2011 bss