IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6393 OF 2008 Between: 1. Nidamanuri Rama Mohan Rao 2. Nidamanuri Padmavathi 3. Mandala Madhava Reddy 4. Mandala Veera Reddy ..... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 6 & 7 AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Nidamanuri Vijaya Lakshmi ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2007, on the file of the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 363 read with 34 IPC. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that the second respondent was given in marriage to one Nidamanuri Srinivasulu, resident of Rajendranagar, 1st lane, Guntur, and the marriage was performed on 12.03.2004 as per Hindu Customs and Traditions, at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi. Before the marriage, i.e., on 02.03.2004, the dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as promised by the elder brother of the second respondent/complainant, was given to A1 and A2 in the presence of marriage elders who are A6 and A7. Further, another Rs.1,00,000/- was given to two Adabiddalu. The husband of the second respondent/complainant was treating her with love and affection, but in-laws, not satisfied with the dowry amounts already given, used to taunt and subjecting the second respondent/complainant to cruelty, due to which she suffered mentally and physically. The in-laws used to beat her now and then saying that the dowry amount is insufficient and demanded to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. On 25.11.2005 at 9.00 a.m., the second respondent/complainant went to bus stop at Rajendranagar, Guntur, to go to her maiden house situated at Phirangipuram, at that time, A1 along with A6 and A7 kidnapped her husband, for the reason that A1 acquired huge properties, and the mental condition of his son i.e., husband of the second respondent/complainant is not well, taking advantage of it, A1 was trying to separate his son and the second respondent/complainant with malafide intention to hand over the properties to his daughters and all the accused started harassing the second respondent/complainant physically and mentally and tried to neck her out of the house and therefore, the second respondent/complainant lodged a complaint to the Pattabhipuram L&O Police Station, and the Police registered a case in Crime No.262/2005, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 363 read with 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the proceedings against A3 to A5 have been quashed and that the question of kidnapping A1’s own son may not arise and therefore, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but the abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that prima facie, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 demanded additional dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and A6 and A7 along with A1 kidnapped the husband of the second respondent/complainant; that therefore, these allegations made out a cognizable offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 363 read with 34 IPC, and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order under this Code. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 363 read with 34 IPC, then only the question of quashing the FIR would arise. Simply because the case against A3 to A5 have been quashed, that does not mean the case against the present petitioners should be quashed. The allegations of the charge sheet along with the other documents have to be seen for the purpose of deciding whether a prima facie case is made out. Whether petitioners demanded Rs.6,00,000/- towards additional dowry or not is the question of fact which is required to be decided and determined after adducing necessary evidence in the trial Court. 6. Harassment by husband or relative of a husband for property or valuable security is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. On 25.11.2005 at 9.00 a.m., when the second respondent /complainant went to the bus stop of Rajendranagar, Guntur, to go to her maiden house situated at Phirangipuram. A1 along with A6 and A7 kidnapped the husband of the second respondent/complainant for the reason that A1 acquired huge house properties. No doubt, the father may not be liable for the kidnap of his own son. The allegation is that A6 and A7 kidnapped the husband of the second respondent/complainant. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against A6 and A7. The proceedings against A3 to A5 are quashed because no allegations were levelled against them. A prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this Criminal Petition and uninfluenced by any of the observations, the trial Court shall proceed with the case. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 14th October, 2009. KL