HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.4808 of 2008 Date: November 23, 2011 Between: Medimi Ravi Prasad, S/o. Dharma Rao and others … Petitioners And Smt.Medimi Madhavi, W/o.Ravi Prasad and another … Respondents Order: This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1117 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 1st petitioner and 1st respondent herein are husband and wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent is the complainant and she has filed the complaint with the following allegations. She is a resident of H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam. She was married to the 1st petitioner on 22.11.2004 and the same was an arranged marriage. Their marriage was solemnized at Hotel Daspalla and her parents, L.Ws.2 and 3 gave to the 1st petitioner Rs.2,50,000/- towards purchase of different household articles, Rs.21,000/- towards gold and silver for, Rs.25,000/- towards gold and sari for the sister of the 1st petitioner, Rs.90,000/- towards marriage hall, food expenses and Rs.20,000/- for miscellaneous expenses etc. Immediately after the marriage, the 1st petitioner started harassing her and petitioners 2 and 3 also ill-treated her. She had undergone torture and humiliation meted out to her by the petitioners. At her request, her parents, L.Ws.2 and 3, proceeded to the residence of the petitioners and tried to resolve the issue, but petitioners continued harassment and ill-treatment towards her and demanded additional dowry. On the aforesaid complaint, Police conducted investigation and submitted final report. In the final report, it is stated all the petitioners subjected the 1st respondent to cruelty both mentally and physically demanding her to bring dowry, as such they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no basis for the complaint made against the petitioners and in the absence of any evidence, charges are framed against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that a petition is filed for restoration of conjugal rights and at the stage of Transfer Petition, efforts were made for reconciliation, but they proved futile. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a copy of the report submitted by the National Legal Services Authority to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India, from a perusal of which it is evident that reconciliation is failed only in view of the adamant attitude of the 1st respondent and she wanted only divorce from the 1st petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State that specific allegation of harassment has been made against not only the 1st petitioner but also his parents, i.e. petitioners 2 and 3. It is also alleged that they were not serving food to the 1st respondent and were trying to send her out of the house late in the night. It is further submitted that final report is filed stating that the petitioners subjected the 1st respondent to cruelty both mentally and physically demanding her to bring dowry, as such they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I have perused a copy of the report of the National Legal Services Authority sent to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India and also the final report filed before the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is true that a reading of the said report would disclose that efforts made to reconcile the issue failed because of the alleged adamant attitude of the 1st respondent, but, that, by itself is no ground to entertain this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings. A bare reading of the complaint as well as the final report would make it clear that specific allegations are made not only against the 1st petitioner but against petitioners 2 and 3 stating that they are harassing the 1st respondent both physically and mentally for dowry. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 23, 2011 MRR