IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.4795 of 2009 Between: Gummadi Surya Prakash Rao & another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.4795 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 in Cc No.1517 of 2008 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered it as Cr.No.850 of 2008 and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against A.1 and the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 herein for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner-A.2 is the brother of A.1 and 2nd petitioner-A.3 is the wife of A.2. According to the complainant, as A.1 had no parents, petitioners-A.2 and A.3 being the brother and sister-in-law of A.1, acted as elders for the marriage and at the time of the marriage on 10.08.2001, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- and 250 grams of golden ornaments and also deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of the complainant in Oriental Bank of Commerce and after a girl child was born on 04.10.2003, A.1 shifted the residence from Madhuranagar to Kukatpally nearer to the house of the petitioners and thereafter, there has been a demand for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from all the accused. It is further alleged that she was pressurized to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and gave away the same to A.2 for the purpose of business. It is also alleged that on 01.08.2009, A.1 beat the complainant indiscriminately and threatened with dire consequences and when the complainant informed the same to the petitioners herein, they paid deaf ear and insisted that she shall bring additional dowry or otherwise, they will not allow her to share the house with A.1. 4. A perusal of the complaint and also the charge sheet would disclose specific allegations against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 as well prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is specifically alleged that A.2 and A.3 threatened the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and if she failed to do so, they would perform another marriage to A.1. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can come out only after the evidence is recorded during course of trial. At this stage, having regard to the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 also pertaining to the alleged offences, it is considered not a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1517 of 2008 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.12.2010 bss