THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3093 of 2007 Date:5.08.2010 Between: G.Vimala Devi and two others. ……..Petitioners-A2, A3 & A5. And The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ……Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3093 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A2-G.Vimala Devi, A3-G.Chandrahas & A5- I.Jyothirmayee in Crime No.200 of 2006 of Law & Order Police Station, Guntur Town, Guntur registered for the offences under Sections 498-A & 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to quash the First Information Report therein. The complaint came to be presented by Bandlamudi Padma Kumari alleging inter alia that one Uppalapati Narasimha Rao, who has been arrayed as A1, married her daughter Roja Rani on 18.8.2006 at Kakani Sivalayam and soon after the marriage, the said Narasimha Rao along with his sister, brother-in-law, mother harassed her daughter on the ground that she is fatty and had Narsimha Rao got married some other woman, he would have got more dowry. It is further stated in the report that she paid Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams. The stay of her daughter in the marital home was hardly three days. Even for the three days, her daughter was put to harassment by Narasimha Rao and her relations. The Station House Officer received the report presented by her on 27.11.2006 and registered a case in Crime No.200 of 2006 under Sections 498-A & 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence this petition by A2, A3 and A5 with a prayer stated supra. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the stay of the daughter of the defacto complainant at her in laws house is hardly three days. It is highly improbable that her daughter was put to harassment by the petitioners herein who are relations of her husband. The learned counsel by referring the report submitted by the 2nd respondent-complainant submits that there are no specific instances of harassment attributed to the petitioners herein who are sister, brother-in- law and sister-in-law of Narasimha Rao, who has been arrayed as A1, and, therefore, continuation of further investigation in Crime No.200 of 2006 amounts to an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the report submitted by the 2nd respondent contains a specific acquisitions against the petitioners herein and since the matter is under investigation, it is not desirable to quash the First Information Report in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The issue that calls for adjudication in this criminal petition is whether the complaint presented by the 2nd respondent before the Station House Officer which formed the basis for registration of a case in Crime No.200 of 2006 is liable to be quashed. It is the contention of the petitioners that no specific instances of harassment have been attributed in the report presented by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, and, therefore, the First Information Report in Crime No.200 of 2006 is liable to be set aside. In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab[1] the Apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:- (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g., want of sanction; (ii) Whether the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. I have gone through the report presented by the 2nd respondent. It is specifically stated in the report that the petitioners herein, who are the relations of the accused No.1, started harassing the daughter of the defacto-complainant soon after the marriage on the ground that she is fatty. The report contains specific accusations against the petitioners. Therefore, it is not fit case to quash the complaint in First information Report in Crime No.200 of 2006 in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:5.8.2010 mrb [1] AIR 1960 SC 866