IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2298 OF 2009 Between: Govinda Venkata Ramana Reddy 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.2298 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in C.C.No.724 of 2008 on the file of X metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. 2. Petitioners herein are A2 to A4. 3. On 01.04.2008, respondent No.2/complainant lodged a report stating that his only daughter, Sujatha, was given in marriage to Govinda Srinivas Reddy (A1) on 08.06.1995. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, gold ornaments, household articles worth Rs.50,000/-, a Hero Honda Motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- and three landed properties - (i) Residential Flat No.14 (900 Square Feet – 2 plots), G.K.Nilayam, Hyderabad, (ii) Parvathi Nagar Malkajgiri (250 Square Yards) and (iii) Nagaram Keesara (420 Square Yards) were given to the accused towards dowry. Soon after the marriage, A1 left to United States of America (U.S.A.) for his education at the cost of complainant. Since then the complainant was looking after the needs of his daughter and son-in-law. Right from the marriage of the daughter of the complainant, A1 to A4 were harassing the daughter of the complainant for additional dowry. At the instance of A4, A3 harassed his daughter and got the flat transferred in her name, sold the said flat without intimating either to the complainant or his daughter and used the amount for her personal use. Further, A4 pressurized his daughter to transfer the other plots in his favour. Recently A3 visited U.S.A. and demanded his daughter to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of A1 and tortured her. In the month of August, 2007, A1 visited India and transferred a major land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in favour of A4 without the knowledge of his daughter. A1 had extra marital relationship with another woman and harassed his daughter at the instigation of A2 to A4. A2 to A4 continued their harassment through telephone and instigated A1. On 30.03.2008, at the instigation of A2 to A4, there was an attempt on the life of his daughter by electrocution, but U.S.A. police rescued her. The complainant’s daughter has sent e- mails and communications about the harassment being meted out to her and further, the complainant has electronic voice recording of conversation of the accused made to kill his daughter. It is alleged that A1 has harassed the victim at his place in U.S.A. on the instigation of A2 to A4 for additional dowry. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no allegation that the petitioners herein harassed the daughter of respondent No.2/complainant for additional dowry; that only omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein; that therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 5. In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2. 6. 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. The allegations in the charge sheet, if taken as true or correct at this stage, made out a prima facie case of the offences alleged, then the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arise. 7. Husband or relative of husband coercing the wife or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. 8. There is allegation that the petitioners’ herein/A2 to A4 were instigating A1 to harass the daughter of respondent No.2/complainant to bring additional dowry and as per the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 was harassing the daughter of respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry. It is an unlawful demand. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 109 I.P.C. Hence, the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arise. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 20, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2298 OF 2009 August 20, 2010