THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4228 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizianagaram. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, stating that she was married to the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4, on 16.03.2001 and that at the time of marriage, petitioners 1 and 2 demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, 5 tulas of gold, a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and others worth Rs.25,000/-, for which, the brother of the complainant has agreed and paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash apart from Hero Honda Motor Cycle, 5 tulas of gold, Rs.20,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams etc. She also stated that her husband unfortunately died on 10.12.2003 and thereafter, the petitioners have not allowed her to stay in their house and though they promised to return the gold, cash and other articles, which were given at the time of marriage, they did not return the same by postponing the matter on one pretext or other, which constituted the offences punishable under Section 406 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6(1)(b) and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Such complaint was referred to the police for investigation and the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.78 of 2007 and after completion of investigation, on the ground that the petitioners did not return any of the items including cash received as dowry in connection with the marriage and thereby permanently misappropriated the dowry, the police filed final report against them for the offences punishable under Section 406 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage was performed on 16.03.2001, as such, the alleged complaint is barred by limitation in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in view of Rule 5 of Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 with regard to demand of dowry, the complaint is to be filed within a period of one year. In this case, it is to be noticed that the specific complaint of the second respondent is that the petitioners have to return Stridhana property within the time frame as contemplated under Section 6(1)(b) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and if not, they are liable for punishment under Section 6(2) of the said Act. Even for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, having regard to the allegations, whether limitation is to be reckoned from the date of marriage or from the subsequent demands, is a matter, which is to be examined during trial. When it is the specific case of the second respondent that the petitioners have not returned Stridhana property within the time frame and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 6(1)(b) and Section 6(2) of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Rule 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 could not be made applicable. It is well settled that unless the trial is proceeded with, it is not possible to decide whether the complaint is time-barred. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni