HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4882 OF 2009 DATED.09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-5’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.348 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District, registered for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1 to A-5, the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case hereafter. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainant is the legally wedded wife A-1, A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1 and A-4 and A-5 are the sisters of A-1. The marriage of de-facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 25-02-2006 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash, 10 tulas of gold ornaments, along with computer, vehicle and household articles were given as dowry to A-1 to A-5 and after the marriage, they lived happily only for some time and thereafter A-1 to A-5 used to harass the de-facto complainant mentally and physically for additional dowry asking her to give divorce to A-1 otherwise. Further, during their marital life, the de-facto complainant and A-1 begot one male child and thereby repeatedly she requested A-1 to A-5 to change their attitude, but it was in vain and in addition to that A-1 to A-5 mortgaged the gold ornaments given by the parents of the de-facto complainant to her at the time of marriage in a bank and availed a loan amount. Hence, A-1 to A-5 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for A-1 to A-5 contends that there are no specific allegations against them and in fact they are only bald in nature and as A-1 filed O.P. No.168 of 2008 against the de-facto complainant seeking for divorce on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada as a counterblast to that case, the de-facto complainant filed O.P. No.1487 of 2008 seeking for the restitution of conjugal rights and also filed the complaint in question and hence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in the Calender Case. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and the learned counsel for the second respondent have contended that there is prima-facie material to prosecute A-1 to A-5 in the case. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. Admittedly A-2 to A-5 have been living together and A-1 has been living separately and A-4 and A-5 are not married women. However, there are clear and specific allegations of harassment of the de-facto complainant to bring additional dowry and also mortgaging the property of the de-facto complainant in the bank and obtaining loan. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is necessary to conduct trial in the case to decide the complicity of A-1 to A-5 in the case. Ultimately, I find no merits in the petition and accordingly, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of A-2 to A-5 before the trial Court is dispensed with till the date of commencement of the trial in the case, subject to the requirement of their presence in the Court on any particular day. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4882 OF 2009 December, 09, 2011 DSH