IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12007 of 2010 Between:- T.Suresh Kumar …Petitioner A n d T.Siri Laxmi and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12007 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/respondent in C.C.No.233 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. Based on the complaint given by the first respondent, the police registered a case in Cr.No.178 of 2007 against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner alone, who is the husband of the complainant, and exonerated the other accused. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.233 of 2007. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fact that all the other accused were exonerated from the investigation would show that the complaint given by the first respondent is false. The said contention is ex facie untenable. 5. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that specific allegations have been made by the complainant against her husband and other members of the matrimonial family to the effect that she was harassed over the demand for additional dowry and also on the ground that she was not looking beautiful and that she was even assaulted physically by the husband. 6. There is a specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner has been demanding additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs, not satisfied with Rs.1 lakh given by her parents. It is also specifically alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has beat the complainant on several occasions. The allegations contained in the complaint prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can come out only after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is false, cannot be appreciated at this stage in the present proceedings. Simply because the other accused happen to be exonerated during the course of investigation, the complaint itself cannot be branded as false. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner, the husband of the complainant, in the complaint and specific overt acts were also attributed to him, the matter requires a full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made. 7. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and they cannot be invoked to thwart further proceedings, especially when the complaint makes specific allegations against the accused and after investigation, the police have also filed a charge sheet pertaining to the same and the material on record prima facie shows that the ingredients of the alleged offence are attracted. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/respondent in C.C.No.233 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Judge, Vijayawada. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd December, 2010 Lrkm.