THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1847 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the F.I.R. inc rime no.159 of 2008 of Women Protection Cell, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, who are A.3 and A.4. 2. The third respondent/complainant herein lodged a private complaint against the petitioners and two others alleging that marriage of the complainant with A.1 was solemnized on 12.11.2007 as per Christian rites and customs, and at the time of marriage, on the demand of accused, mother of complainant gave dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash besides other gold ornaments and household articles. For many days after the marriage, there was no physical contact between the couple and the marriage was not consummated. A.1 used to abuse the complainant and her mother, sister and brother-in-law making phone calls and was behaving worst. Prior to the marriage, A.1 stated that he was working in CONVERGYS I.T. Company, Hyderabad and drawing salary of Rs.65,000/- per month, which, according to the complainant, is false statement. A.1 used to demand the complainant to sell away her gold ornaments and further demanding to bring Rs.4,00,000/- as additional dowry, and threatened that unless the same is paid, he would not consummate the marriage. A.3 and other accused were insisting and instigating A.1 to neck out the complainant from the house if the demand was not met, due to which, A.1 used to demand the complainant and her mother to bring the additional dowry, threatening to marry another girl and get huge dowry. Hence, the complaint. 3. None appears for the petitioners. inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record and the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged against the petitioners, and therefore, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. When the allegations in the complaint do not make a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then only the question of quashing the same would arise. 6. Any unlawful demand is a ‘cruelty’ as per explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. The allegations in the complaint are prima facie clear that petitioners were harassing the defacto complainant demanding additional dowry, which is punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The further allegation is that A.1 stated that he was working in CONVERGYS, an I.T. company, and he was getting salary of Rs.65,000/- per month, which was found to be false subsequently. Suppression of a material fact is deception within the meaning of cheating. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged, and hence, the question of quashing the impugned proceedings does not arise. 7. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------- DRK 30.7.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1847 OF 2009 Date: 30.7.2010 Between: Santri Joyel Francis Ravindranath & another …Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the SHO, Luxxettipet p.s., Adilabad & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1847 OF 2009 30.7.2010