HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 5738 of 2008 DATED: 08.04.2011 Between: 1. Dasari Purna Sankaramma 2. Dasari Krishna Murthy 3. Dasari Mohana Ravindra Babu .. Petitioners/ Accused And 1. State of A.P. 2. Dasari Aruna Sri .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - A2 to A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 346 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows: On 09.05.1993, A1 in the case married the de facto complainant – Dasari Aruna Sri at Repalle town according to Hindu religious and caste custom. A2 and A3 are the parents and A4 is the eldest brother of A1. During the marriage ceremony, the father of the de facto complainant gave gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/- to A1 to A3 towards dowry. A1 and the de facto complainant lived happily till 21.03.1997 and were blessed with two children. Thereafter, A1 started harassing the de facto complainant for bringing Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents towards additional dowry. Further, A1, having been addicted to vices, sold away her gold ornaments and spent the amount so received lavishly. But he continued to beat her without any reason. Further, in the month of November, 2002, A2 to A4 also harassed the complainant for bringing additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and beat her. All the accused forced her and her parents to pay the additional dowry amount and threatened them that if the demand was not met, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial house. Further, unable to bear the harassment meted out to her in the hands of A1 to A4, she left for her parents’ house. Further, on 09.09.2007, all the accused went to the house of her father at Repalli for the purpose of settling the matter, but during the course of conciliation proceedings, A1 picked up quarrel with her father, pressed his neck while A3 and A4 kicked him indiscriminately and A2 abused both the de facto complainant and her father in filthy language. When the elders present there intervened, A1 to A4 left the place threatening them with dire consequences. Further, even though the de facto complainant lodged a report, the police concerned did not initiate any action against the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners – A2 to A4 has contended that a reply notice, dated 21.08.2007 was issued on behalf of the de facto complainant to a notice issued by A1 without referring to alleged harassment for dowry, which clearly falsifies the case of the complainant, and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. So, it is to be mainly seen as to whether there are any grounds warranting interference of this Court to quash the proceedings? It is to be noted that the alleged harassment of the de facto complainant by A1 to A4 for additional dowry, is not found in the reply notice got issued by her. However, it is significant, there are several allegations of harassment of t h e de facto complainant including the plea that on 09.09.2007, while necessary efforts were being made for the settlement of the matter between A1 and the de facto complainant in the house of the father of the complainant, A1 to A4 threatened them with dire consequences and also beat them. Having regard to the allegations leveled against A1 to A4 in the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that unless necessary evidence is adduced, it is difficult to say whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not. Inasmuch as there is a question of fact to be decided, it is not possible for this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.346 of 2008 at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 08.04.2011 bcj