THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.7092 of 2007 Date : 10-3-2010 Between : T.Sesidhar Rao s/o.T.Uma Maheshwar Rao .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.7092 of 2007 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent and Sri Roy Reddy, Counsel representing 2nd respondent. 2. The Counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement and also the allegations made in the complaint and would maintain that in the light of the said agreement and also taking into consideration the age of the parents, it is clear that this case had been foisted. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the Criminal Petition as well. 3. On the contrary Sri Roy Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would submit that the said agreement was not given effect to. Even otherwise, the said agreement cannot be pressed into service in a matter of this nature. The Counsel also would submit that inasmuch as these factual controversies may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (in short hereinafter referred to as “Code” for the purpose of convenience). 4. The petitioner/A-1 filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 4892 of the Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.865/2007 dated 28-6-2007 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. It is the case of the petitioner/A-1 that one Smt.A.Aruna, the 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint before P.S. Hanamkonda, Warangal on 6-2-2006 stating that her marriage was performed on 19-5-2006 with A-1. Thereafter A-1 and defacto complainant/2nd respondent led conjugal life at Kathalguda village, Nalgonda District and during her conjugal life, A-1 harassed her for dowry as agreed by the parents of the 2nd respondent at the time of her marriage. 5. It is also further stated that A-2 is the father of A-1 aged about 70 years, A-3 is the mother of A-1 who is a blind woman aged about 63 years. A-3, A-4 and A-5 are sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent, A-7 to A-9 are husbands of the sisters-in-law and their marriages were performed long back prior to the marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent and all of them are residing in different places for the purpose of employment and therefore there is no possibility of harassment by the in-laws. 6. It is also further stated that as per the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the entire offence took place at Chintalapally village, Kothaguda of Nalgonda District and nothing had taken place at Sammaiah Nagar, Hanamkonda P.S., Warangal. As the 2nd respondent is staying with her father she lodged the complaint before Hanamkonda P.S. which has no jurisdiction and on this ground also the proceedings are to be quashed. Further it is stated that it is relevant to mention that prior to the filing of the complaint by the 2nd respondent, there was an agreement between the complainant and A-1 according to which A-1 has to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the defacto complainant and the said amount has to be paid only after obtaining divorce decree on mutual consent before the Court and in the said agreement except A-1 and A-2 who is the father of A-1, no other accused were present and signed on it on 12-11-2006. Later, due to the inability of A-1 the said agreement dated 12-11-2006 was not complied and A-1 with an intention to join her to lead the happy married life issued legal notice dated 23-1-2007 to the defacto complainant to come and join him but the 2nd respondent without joining A-1 filed the false complaint against all the accused and in the absence of specific allegations the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed as against A-1. 7. This Court had carefully gone through the specific allegations made as against the petitioner/A-1. In the light of the same, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that these factual controversies cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage us. 482 of the Code. 8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 10-3-2010 AM