HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3849 OF 2008 DATE: 09-09-2011 BETWEEN: K. Damodar Reddy and another. - - - Petitioners/ A-2 & A-3. AND K. Preethi Reddy and The State of A.P., Through S.H.O. Hanmkonda P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3849 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 (For short, ‘A-2 and A-3’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.267 of 2008, on the file of Hanmakonda Police Station, Warangal District, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-2 and A-3, the Respondent No.1 is the de-facto complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : A-2 and A-3 are the parents-in-law of the de-facto complainant namely K. Preethi Reddy. A-1 is the husband of the de-facto complainant and their marriage was performed on 21-11-2001 as per Hindu rites and customs at Hanmakonda, Warangal District. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/- were given to the Accused as dowry on their demand. At the time of marriage proposals it was informed that A-1 was employed in U.S.A. following which only the proposal was accepted. But after the marriage, it came to light that A-1 was not employed in U.S.A. However, after the marriage A-1 and the de-facto complainant went to U.S.A. in January, 2002 and there A-1 forced the de-facto complainant to do a job for their household expenses and used to harass her by taking her entire salary and addicted to drinking. Further, A-1 and the de-facto complainant returned to India on 30-12- 2004 and stayed at Jubilee Hills till May, 2005 in the house of her parents-in-law and in fact in May, 2005 A-2 and A-3 asked them to get out of the house. Thereafter, they shifted their residence to Nallakunta and lived there. Subsequently, A-2 and A-3 forcibly took away the jewellary, which was given to the de-facto complainant at the time of her marriage and in addition to that used to harass her in filthy and vulgar language. Further, in August, 2006 A-1 got job in Genpact, Uppal, Hyderabad. Further, it is also alleged that A-1 who was suspicious in nature used to harass her and suspect her character. Further, it is also alleged that A-1 used to demand her to get money from her parents as her mother sold away lands in their village and A-2 and A-3 used to encourage A-1 to torture her. Further, it is alleged that on 21-12-2007 when her sister Pragathi and aunt Smt. Janaki visited their house, A-1 picked up quarrel with her and tried to strangulate her with her Mangalasutra chain and thereafter, the de-facto complainant unable to bear the harassment of the Accused lodged a report seeking to punish the accused according to law. Hence, the A-2 and A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 that even as per the prosecution A-2 and A-3 lived along with A-1 and the de- facto complainant only from 31-12-2004 to the first week of May, 2005 and further no specific allegations are made against A-2 and A-3 and only bald allegations are made against A-2 and A-3 and therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against A-2 and A-3. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings against A-2 and A-3 in this case? 6. I have gone through the record and I am of the opinion that there are specific allegations against A-2 and A-3 supported by record. Further, the investigation of the case is still in progress. Admittedly at this stage it is not advisable to quash the proceedings on the said grounds. However, after the completion of the investigation in the case, if no such material is found against A-2 and A-3, they are at liberty to renew their application seeking for the appropriate remedy available to them. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed 135 observing that however, the Petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are at liberty to renew their application for the appropriate remedy after the completion of the investigation of the case in Crime No.267 of 2008, on the file of Hanmakonda P.S. Warangal District. __________________​_______ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dsh Dated: 09-09-2011 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3849 of 2008 09-09-2011 DSH