THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1607 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence alleged. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offence alleged. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.494 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R and the charge sheet, the petitioner, who is the husband of the second respondent, subjected the second respondent to cruelty for additional dowry. The second respondent made several allegations against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner subjected the second respondent to cruelty for additional dowry or not is purely a question of fact which cannot be gone into while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself with the material placed before him, has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and others under Section 498-A I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not committed any irregularity or illegality while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the petitioner and others. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner (A.1) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. I n Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions. 1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; 2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; 3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.” I n Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v . State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del) } and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675}. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio laid down in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the pre-trial stage. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 14.10.2014 Ivd [1] (1977) 4 SCC 551 [2] (2011) 12 SCC 437