IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 1954 of 2007 Between: Posina Rakesh Babu . .Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 1954 of 2007 ORDER : This petition is filed by the 1st accused (A-1) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.84 of 2006 of IV town (Law and Order) Police Station, Nellore relating to the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) There is no dispute that A-1 originally agreed to marry daughter of the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent. Subsequently without any information, A-1 left the place without fulfilling his obligation of marrying daughter of the 2nd respondent. A-1 is working as software engineer at Aukland, New Zealand. After parents of A-1 and parents of the girl meeting each other and after seeing photographs, the marriage was settled. As per allegations in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the police, subsequent to settlement of marriage, A-1’s parents who are A-2 and A-3 and their relations began demanding for dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from other payments and gifts and that finally dowry was settled at Rs.5,00,000/- and other payments and gifts were reduced. It is stated in the report that it was parents of A-1 who demanded the said dowry and presents. Subsequently, betrothal ceremony also took place. As per allegations in the report, on 16.05.2006 the 2nd respondent paid dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and other payments like Adapaduchu Katnam etc., in the presence of A-1 to his parents, even though the 2nd respondent had no capacity to pay the said amount and after borrowing the said amount from his relations. The marriage was fixed and scheduled to take place on 18.05.2006. Suddenly A-1 disappeared from Nellore and flew away to New Zealand. In those circumstances, the 2nd respondent was constrained to give this report to the police against A- 1 to A-3. 3) It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-1 that there was no demand for dowry muchless payment of dowry in the presence of A-1 even as per the allegations in the report. On a reading of contents of F.I.R, it is evident that though initially demand of dowry was by parents of A-1, payment of dowry amount and other items on 16.05.2006 was in the presence of A-1. Affidavit of A-1 was filed in this criminal petition to the affect that during betrothal, when he had separate interview with the girl, the girl expressed her disinterestedness to marry him stating that she wanted to marry her colleague in Bangalore by name Penchalaiah and requested him to cooperate for the same. It is further stated therein that with an intention to cooperate with the girl in order to fulfill her desire to have her marriage with a boy of her own choice, without informing anybody, he left Nellore to Aukland. A-1 pleads that he was not at all responsible and that the entire mishap took place because of representation to him by the girl. 4) At this stage, this Court cannot go into truth or otherwise of the averments contained in the affidavit of A-1 filed before this Court in this petition. It is for the petitioner/A-1 to approach the investigating officer and to reveal this defence to him/her so that the investigating officer will make efforts to find out truth or otherwise of the defence version put forward by A-1 in his affidavit before this Court. As the matter now stands, averments in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the police reveal required ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 20, 2009 KSH