THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1255 of 2008 (Dated : 30-11-2011) Between: Manne Bhanu Praveen S/o M.Gopi Chand and others ...Petitioners A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and L.Kalyani W/o M.Bhanu Praveen ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1255 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the accused in C.C.No.611 of 2007 on the ﬁle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to quash the proceedings therein. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to ﬁling of this criminal petition by the accused in C.C.611 of 2007 on the ﬁle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are: - T h e de facto complainant-Smt. Lanka Kalyani presented a report before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, alleging inter alia that she got married to Manne Bhanu Prakash (1st petitioner herein) on 18-11-2004 at APSRTC Kala Bhavan, RTC X Roads, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. She was made to believe that Manne Bhanu Prakash was a doctor at the time of marriage and he would be getting American citizenship within three months. Later, she came to know that he was not a doctor by profession and a criminal case was pending against him in USA Court. When she along with Manne Bhanu Prakash went to Bangalore on honeymoon, he told her that he was not ready to accept her as his wife and she was to wait for some time. On 24-11-2004, Manne Bhanu Praksh left for USA and whereas she left for Canada on 25- 11-2004 on her permanent immigration. Bhanu Praksh came to visit her in Canada and he used to go to the Casino to gamble or spent time in pubs for drinking. He allegedly abused the de facto complainant and used to harass her physically for money for gambling and drinking. Their marriage was registered once again in Canada on 16-4-2005. On 18-7-2005, her in-laws along with her husband stayed with her for three days. During the three days, her husband and in-laws harassed her and threatened her that their son would divorce her if she failed to get her share in the property worth Rs.70,00,000/- . When she refused to give money, her husband beat her. She informed P.V.Rama Rao about her husband’s behaviour and harassment. Her in-laws demanded her parents for share in the property and also a share in the business. In April, 2006, her younger sister’s marriage was arranged with her father-in-law’s cousin, namely, S.Radha Krishna. Her husband started threatening her that if she did not ask her father for money and a diamond cartier watch worth Rs.3,00,000/-, he would cancel the engagement of her younger sister with S.Radha Krishna. In September, 2006, her in-laws came to Canada and stayed there for ten days and they harassed her for money and made her to withdrew amounts from the Bank by buying costly gifts and air tickets. Her mother expired on 23-11- 2006. Therefore, she came to India. Her in-laws called on her at Habsiguda, Hyderabad on 01-01-2007 and they insisted for Rs.70,00,000/- as dowry. They also threatened that they would cancel her sister’s wedding, which was scheduled on 21-1-2007. A meeting was arranged on 13-01-2007 at 4 p.m at P.V.Rama Rao’s residence in Khairatabad. Her father could not attend the meeting as he fell sick, instead her father’s sister P.Swarajya Lakshmi and her husband P.Venkataratnam and her brother Kiran attended the meeting. In the said meeting, her in-laws insisted for payment of Rs.70,00,000/- . 3. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.21 of 2007 under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered by Lw.9- L.K.Kasinath, Inspector of Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on ﬁle as C.C.No.611 of 2007. Hence this petition seeking the relief stated supra. 4. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 29-12-2008. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant never lived with the petitioner No.1 and even if the averments in the report submitted by the 2nd respondent have been taken into consideration, no cause of action has arisen in Hyderabad, in which case, continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.611 of 2007 amounts to abuse of process of court. She would also submit that the 2nd respondent and petitioner No.1 lived separately from October 2009 and no marital relationship subsists between them as on this day. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- complainant submits that speciﬁc accusations have been made against the petitioners herein and the said accusations have been spoken out by the witnesses examined during the course of investigation and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the charge sheet averments. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant narrated speciﬁc instances wherein the petitioners herein demanded her to bring property worth Rs.70,00,000/-. Even in the meetings convened at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners 2 and 3 demanded the 2nd respondent–de facto complainant to get property worth Rs.70,00,000/- from her parents. The witnesses for the demand of the petitioners 2 and 3 have also been stated by the 2nd respondent in her report. The police during the course of investigation examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and they have been cited as Lws.6 to 8. Such is the material available on record, the accusations levelled against the petitioners cannot be said to be without any material. In that view of the matter, the petitioners failed to make out any valid ground for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.611 of 2007 on the ﬁle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim stay granted on 29-02-2008 shall stand vacated. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.30-11-2011 RAR