THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8401 OF 2009 DATED:20-09- 2010. Between 1.A.Vikram and three others … Petitioners-A1 to A4 And 1. The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8401 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.166 of 2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. 2. It is alleged that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of A1. A2 and A3 are parents of A1 and A4 is the brother of A1. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/-, gold worth Rs.5,00,000/-, silver worth of Rs.1,00,000/- on demand of the accused. A1 is residing in USA and three months after the marriage, A1 took the complainant to USA. Since the date of marriage, A1 started harassing her both mentally and physically demanding for more dowry and used to threaten her to divorce in case she fails to bring additional dowry and also said that he ought to have been given more dowry if he marries any other girl. The accused beat her and demanding her to pay Rs.35,000/- American Dollars and also demanded to repay the amounts spent on the visit of her other. The accused also forcibly took her earnings and used credit cards and never paid the amounts to her. On 16-11-2008 mother of the complainant gave complaint against him and police summoned A2 to A4 to police station, where A2 gave an undertaking that he will settle the matter, but on 04-12-2008 A2 and A3 jumped to USA without knowledge of police or neighbours and joined with A1 and started torture her physically and mentally and forced her to pressurize her mother to withdraw the complaint and finally they grabbed the infant child and necked her out of alone. However, she reached her parents house and informed the same. On 13-12-2008 A4 came to her parents house and threatened her with dire consequences and forced to withdraw the case and that accused also decided to arrange re-marriage to A1 for additional dowry. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet and statement of witnesses are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and also 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and hence, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that allegations in the complaint would go to show that the complainant was harassed for not bringing required dowry, that what is that harassment will be explained during the course of evidence only, that it is not at this stage to test the allegations in the charge sheet and statement of witnesses, that in view of the fact that the allegations made out prima facie case of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 an 4 of D.P. Act, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under this Code. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means- “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b)Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” At this stage, it is not desirable to test the allegations as true and correct. If the un-controverted allegations in the charge sheet and statement of witnesses made out prima facie case of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. As seen from the complaint, there are some allegations levelled against the husband, who allegedly demanded certain amount at the time of marriage. There cannot be any dispute that demand of dowry in connection with the marriage is an offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. There is allegation against the 1st petitioner that he was harassing the complainant for additional dowry at America when they stayed together. The only allegation against the petitioners 2 to 4 is that in-laws driven the complainant out of the house while they were staying at America. It is alleged that they were harassing her mentally and physically. Similarly the statement of L.W.2, who is the mother of the complainant would go to show that petitioners 2 to 4 abused the complainant for bringing less dowry. It is also alleged that the complainant was driven out from the house and they also threatened her. Mere threatening, mere beating, mere harassment or mere harassing in abusive language does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Those were lacking in the statement of witnesses and in the charge sheet. Without testing the allegations made in the statement of witnesses and charge sheet as true and correct at this stage and even if they are accepted as true for the purpose of deciding whether prima facie case is made out or not, they do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners 2 to 4. Similarly, they have not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage or before or after the marriage so as to make out the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. Even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct coupled with the statement of witnesses, they do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the petitioners 2 to 4. Therefore, proceedings are liable to be quashed against petitioners 2 to 4. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.166 of 2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, insofar as the petitioners 2 to 4-A2 to A4 are concerned. The Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as the 1st petitioner-A1 is concerned. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:20-09- 2010 Hsd