THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6137 of 2008 Dated:- 22nd April, 2010 Between: Jonnalagadda Suresh and others …Petitioner AND Katragadda Ratna Kumari and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6137 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, in the present criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.555 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar. The first respondent herein is the complainant. She filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which has been referred to the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and the Women Police Station, Saroornagar, registered a case in Crime No.1289 of 2006 and after completing investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioners alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 415, 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same has been registered as C.C.No.555 of 2008. Challenging the said criminal proceedings, the present criminal petition is filed. As seen from the allegations made in the charge sheet, the specific case of the complainant is that her marriage was fixed with A-1 and accordingly, engagement function was held on 29.07.2006. It is also her case that fifteen days prior to the date of engagement, her parents gave Rs.12.00 lakhs to A-2 and A-3 and Rs.3.00 lakhs ‘Adabidda Katnam’ to A-1 to A-4. It is also her case that on the date of engagement ceremony, her parents presented a diamond ring worth Rs.1.00 lakh to A-1. ‘Lagna Patrika’ was written on 03.11.2000 and the date of marriage was fixed on 15.12.2006. After engagement, A-1 went to USA and thus A-2 to A-4 started demanding additional dowry. It is also her case that her father booked a function hall, i.e., Sama Saraswathi Gardens for the marriage and paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- as advance. The accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.70.00 lakhs and also directed the complainant and her father to sell away three plots which were on her name. Due to the attitude of the accused, the marriage alliance broke down. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. It is also submitted that there is no element of cheating even as seen from the charge sheet allegations. It is also submitted that about Rs.9.50 lakhs worth of jewelry was presented to the first respondent and that those ornaments were not returned to the petitioners / accused. Admittedly, at the initial stage itself, this petition to quash proceedings has been filed. In quash proceedings, the truth or otherwise of the charge sheet allegations cannot be decided. Inherent powers must be exercised carefully. The primary function and object of a criminal trial is to find whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Unless and until it appears that the allegations made in the charge sheet or in the FIR did not constitute any offence even if those allegations are taken at their face value and are accepted in their entirety, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The question of appreciation of evidence does not arise at this stage. Similarly, whether there was delay in lodging the complaint or not and what is the effect of delay, all such issues cannot be decided in quash proceedings. Admittedly, no evidence has been let in and it is for the trial Court to decide the matter after proper appreciation of the evidence, if any. I do not see any ground to quash proceedings in this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR April 22, 2010 Bvv