THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7861 of 2009 DATED:25.09.2009 Between: Shaik Kalesha .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. The petitioner is facing prosecution as first accused in C.C.No.94 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner brings to notice that the second respondent had in fact earlier filed a case before Rajampet Court by way of a complaint in 2001 with altogether different allegations. A comparison between the copy of the complaint therein and the charge sheet herein shows that the dowry including gold and wrist watch said to have been presented by the father of the second respondent at the time of her marriage mentioned in the complaint was not exactly repeated in the charge sheet, which stated about the gold jewellry demanded to be much more than what was specified in the complaint and the charge sheet is as though the demanded dowry was paid. There was also silence about the alleged taking away of the gold jewellry of the second respondent by accused Nos.1 to 4, after one month after the marriage and the specific demand for additional dowry, which was stated to be only Hero Honda motor cycle in the charge sheet but also cash of Rs.50,000/- in the complaint. The complaint mentioned the second respondent to have been driven out in December 1998, after which there was a mediation, which failed, while the charge sheet stated that after the mediation, the second respondent and her husband lived separately for some time even after which the demands for additional dowry continued and that ultimately on 07.01.2003, the second respondent was driven away. It is true that there is thus a significant variation in the version of the second respondent between the complaint in 2001 and the charge sheet now being prosecuted. However, any such discrepancies in the version of the second respondent by themselves cannot be gone into in depth in this restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which cannot be a conclusive proceeding for determination of questions of fact. The Apex Court held that the acceptability, reliability and genuineness of the version of the prosecution is not for the High Court to appreciate in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is only the version of the prosecution as it is that has to be examined to consider whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law or will be opposed to securing the ends of justice. As on the allegations in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the alleged offences are not even prima facie made out against the petitioner and the relationship between the parties and the separation of the couple being not in dispute, the reasons for such separation are better left to be decided by the trial Court on merits on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before the Court. It is also to be noted that when this Court found no basis for continuance of the proceedings against the parents and sister of the petitioner, the said proceedings were already quashed and therefore, the petitioner should be left to take a trial on merits before the trial Court without any intervention of the inherent jurisdiction which is available only in the rarest of rare cases. Hence, the Criminal Petition is not sustainable and accordingly, dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 25th September 2009 KH