HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.722 of 2006 DT.09.07.2010 G.Venugopal …Petitioner V. State of A.P., rep. By P.P. and another … Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.722 of 2006 ORDER:- Petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.522 of 2003, which was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings initiated against him in the said C.C. Petitioner, who is a friend of A1, filed Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2004 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the said charges. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet by an order dated 03.02.2004 held that the ingredients of Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have not been attracted against A5 and A6, for the simple reason that they do not fit into the language of Section 498-A IPC, as they are not the relatives nor even distant relatives of A1. But the previous statement recorded by the investigating officer and the report of the de facto complainant clearly discloses that A5 and A6, who are the friends of A1, instigated A1 to demand additional dowry and to mete out cruelty and that after a family counseling at Suryapet (Town) police station between A1 and the respondent/de facto complainant on 16.06.2002, the de facto complainant was made to give a radio programme and with the words used in the drama, A1 to A4 with the connivance of A5 and A6 created false audio cassette creating a story that there was illicit intimacy between A5 and A6 on one hand and the de facto complainant on the other. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 that the ingredients of Section 417 IPC are not attracted, has not been considered by the trial Court, for discharging the petitioner/A5 from the said charge and accordingly dismissed the same. The same has been confirmed in the revision preferred by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2004 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda by order dated 9.01.2006. The order passed therein has not been questioned, but the petitioner now seeks to quash the proceedings against him. In view of the fact that the statements, which were recorded, are made available with the Magistrate and the audiocassette can be produced before the trial Court and the Court can examine whether the petitioner/A5 induced A1 to do any anything, should be known only after such production and when evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 9th July 2010 lmv