IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2874 OF 2007 Between: Posina Venkateswara Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2874 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 to call for records relating to and connected with Cr.No.84 of 2006 on the file of IV Town Police Station, Nellore, and quash the same. 2. The allegations would go to show that respondent No.2 herein has lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter Sucharitha’s marriage was fixed with the son of the petitioners herein/A2 and A3 on 17.05.2006 at MGR Kalyana Mandapam; that the petitioners have demanded a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was given on 15.05.2006 and arranged all formalities for performing the marriage on 17.05.2006; that the petitioners herein have demanded a further dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioners herein informed that their son-A1 has gone to Chennai for extension of flight ticket while informing him that if demanded amount is not given, their son-A1 will not marry his daughter and that later it came to know that A2 and A3 made A1 to leave the country. Consequently, the marriage was not performed and thus A2 and A3 and their son have committed offence and requested for initiation of proceedings as against them and consequent on the said complaint the police have registered a case in Cr.No.84 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations do not make out prima facie case of the offences alleged and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. There is allegation that all the accused fixed the marriage alliance with the daughter of the complainant and on the date of betrothal ceremony, all the accused had taken Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry, and Rs.20,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam, as demanded by them. Thereafter, A2 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards additional dowry. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the same, A2 and A3 sent their son – A1 to Chennai secretly. Therefore, they stopped the marriage function, thereby the accused cheated the complainant to a tune of Rs.5,20,000/-. 5. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that A2 and A3 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.20,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam and they received the same on 15.05.2006. Further, A2 demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay the same, A2 and A3 sent their son – A1 to Chennai secretly and informed the complainant that A1 had been to Chennai for extension of his flight ticket. The accused also made objection that bride seems to be stout personality and stopped the marriage function. Therefore, suppressing the fact of receiving the dowry amount by the petitioners herein and further demanding additional dowry is nothing but cheating. Therefore, the allegations made out prima facie case against the petitioners. This Court also dismissed the petition filed by the son of the petitioners on 20.11.2009 in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2007. Hence, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 15, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2874 OF 2007 July 15, 2010