THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5399 of 2007 Dated:- 20th April, 2010 Between:- Maruthi Mohana Rao And others …Petitioners AND Peddinti Sudharani And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5399 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by A-3 and A-4 in C.C.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, to quash the said proceedings as far as the petitioners are concerned. The defacto complainant – Smt Peddinti Sudharani filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against A-1 to A-4 alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 352, 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was referred to the police and the police, after investigation, laid charge sheet alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 352, 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they were present when A-1 married A-2 during the subsistence of marriage of A-1 with the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the contents of the private complaint does not disclose any offence. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not related to the de facto complainant and hence Section 498-A IPC or Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been made out. The other main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present petition is filed by the defacto complainant in collusion with A-1 to save A-1 and false allegations have been made against A-3 and A-4. It is also submitted that in fact, A-1 has been residing with the defacto complainant and in the above circumstances, criminal proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. It appears that the de-facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of A-1. Their marriage was solemnized on 09.08.1982. A-1 was working as Manager in Sri Janachaitanya Real Estates and residing at Visakhapatnam. In fact, A-1 and the defacto complainant are blessed with two sons aged about 10 years and 9 years. It is also alleged that subsequently, A-1 developed acquaintance with A-2 who was working in Janachaitainya Real Estates. It is also alleged that A-1 married the defacto complainant on 21.06.2003 at Annavaram Devasthanam and that the petitioners herein helped A-1 and A-2 in performing the said marriage. Certain other allegations have also been made against the petitioners that they, along with A-1 and A-2 bet her with hands and also A-1 harassed her for additional dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioners herein, along with A-2, threatened the defacto complainant and abused her. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the defacto complainant cannot be verified in these proceedings. Whether the defacto complainant, in collusion with A-1, has filed the complaint and whether she has been residing with A-1 under the same roof or not also cannot be verified in these proceedings. The contents of the charge-sheet or the documents filed along with the charge sheet can only be looked into at this stage. It is clear that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage. It is for the petitioners to take all the pleas before the trial Court. The Criminal Petition is dismissed accordingly. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR April 20, 2010 Bvv