IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5791 OF 2008 Between: 1. K.S. Ghousia Begum 2. S.Afthab Banu ..... Petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 & 3 AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Shaik Salma Tabhussum ..... Respondents/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. 2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that the marriage of the second respondent/de facto complainant with one K.S. Masthan Valli @ Altaf took place on 22.05.2006 according to Muslim tradition at Manasa Kalyana Mantapam, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and 25 tolas of gold and other household articles worth about Rs.1,00,000/- were given as dowry. To lead her conjugal life, she came to her in-laws house at Proddatur. While she was staying at her in-laws house, the second petitioner herein was present in the house. It is also alleged that the present petitioners asked her to go to the mother’s place. It is also alleged that when the second respondent/de facto complainant was pregnant, the petitioners stopped the servant maid and asked her to do the strenuous household work and that whenever her husband comes late in the night, they used to inform bad about the second respondent/ de facto complainant and abused her that if another woman was given in marriage to the son of the first petitioner, they would get more dowry and that the second respondent/de facto complainant was being harassed to bring additional dowry. Therefore, the complaint was lodged. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the second petitioner was not at all residing at Proddatur and she was staying with her in-laws house; that there are no allegations with regard to the domestic violence against the second respondent/de facto complainant, and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant contended that specific allegations have been made against the present petitioners; that as prima facie case of domestic violence has been made, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order under this Code. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint is taken as true and correct, at this stage, make out a prima facie case falling under the Domestic Violence Act, then the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 6. The allegation against both the petitioners is that they made the second respondent/de facto complainant to do strenuous household duties by removing the servant maid and that they were harassing her to bring the additional dowry and they were also harassing her that if another woman was given in marriage to the son of the first petitioner, they would get more dowry. Therefore, these allegations would prima facie attract physical and mental agony to the second respondent/de facto complainant herein. In view of the fact that those allegations made out a prima facie case, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. Whether the second petitioner was residing elsewhere, or whether she was residing with her parents as on the date of commission of offence is a question of fact, which has to be decided and determined by the trial Court after adducing necessary evidence. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 15th October, 2009. KL