HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6762 OF 2008 Dated 31-03-2011 Between: Ailuri Pullareddy and 5 others. ……..Petitioners And: The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6762 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.394 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvuru. The 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint against the present petitioners alleging the offences under Sections 498-A, 448, 441, 379 and 506 read with 34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvuru and the same was referred to Thiruvuru Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and it was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2008. The police after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the present petitioners under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that the 2nd respondent is a practicing advocate at Thiruvuru and in order to harass the petitioners, she lodged a false complaint against the petitioners in collusion with her husband in order to extract the landed property belongs to the A.1. He further pleaded that the petitioners 3 to 6 are not residing with the petitioners 1 and 2 and they are residing at different places and only to pressurize A.1 and A.2, the 2nd respondent/complainant has filed the false complaint. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the averments made in the Section 161 Statement of the 2nd respondent before the police clearly establishes that the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC against all the accused. Since the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against them, the averments made in the charge sheet are to be looked into. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that the marriage of the 2nd respondent was performed with the son of A.1 and A.2 on 11.6.1997 and at the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.4.00 lakhs towards ‘Pasupu Kumkum’ and A.1 promised to register his land in the name of 2nd respondent at the time of marriage and immediately after the marriage, she joined with her husband and the accused looked after her with love and affection for some time. The husband of the 2nd respondent worked as Soft Ware Engineer in Gujarat and other places. As such the 2nd respondent and her children living with A.1 and A.2. The 2nd respondent asked A.1 to register the land in her name as promised earlier. Since then, the accused resorted to harass her both mentally and physically and the accused demanded her to bring Rs.2.00 lakhs as additional dowry from her parents’ house. A.1 took the gold ornaments of the 2nd respondent worth Rs.1.00 lakh and not returned. When the 2nd respondent asked the accused about their attitude, the accused quarreled with her and scolded her in vulgar language and A.1 and A.2 drove her away from their house at G. Kotturu and as such she is residing in Tiruvuru. Therefore, as per the allegations of the charge sheet, only A.1 and A.2 are involved in the alleged offence under Sections 498-A IPC but whereas the 2nd respondent relied upon the Section 161 statement recorded by the police. Wherein she has narrated about the involvements of the petitioners 3 to 6 stating that they came one by one and harassed her to get the additional dowry from her parents. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is a practicing advocate at Tiruvuru. Therefore, it appears, she wants to drag all the petitioners in this case, even though no specific allegations were made against the petitioners 3 to 6 in the charge sheet. More over they are not residing with A.1 and A.2 in G. Kotturu village. Prima facie no offences against the petitioners 3 to 6 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC are made out and the allegations made in the charge sheet clearly disclose the involvement of A.1 and A.2 in harassing the 2nd respondent and demanding her to get the additional dowry from her parents and taking away the gold ornaments from her and driven her away out of the house. Hence, the petitioners 3 to 6 are entitled to quash the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.394 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvuru and the petitioners 1 and 2 are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings pending against them in the above C.C. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners 3 to 6/A-3 to A-6 in C.C.No.394 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvuru are quashed and the proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 shall go on. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:31.03.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6762 OF 2008 Dated 31-03-2011 Gk.