IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5513 OF 2009 Between: Gudivaka Bhaskararao and two others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5513 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.76 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, Vijayawada City (L & O) I-Town Police registered a case in Cr.No.353 of 2008 for the oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation, ﬁled charge sheet against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 and A-1, the husband of the complainant, and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.76 of 2009 for the oﬀences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 is the husband, A-2 is the father-in-law and A-3is the mother-in-law of the complainant. A-4 is the younger brother of A-1. According to the complainant, her marriage with A-1 was performed on 14.05.2006 and at the time of marriage Rs.6 lakhs was given in cash, besides 30 sovereigns of gold, motorcycle worth Rs.70,000/- towards dowry, besides Rs.50,000/- towards adapachu lanchanamas. It is stated that subsequent to the marriage, A-1, who was a software engineer, brought VISA to go to US and thereupon the accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and it is further alleged that the complainant’s parents arranged for the travel fare to US in a sum of Rs.87,000/- and the complainant was taken to America but A-1 continued to insist her to bring Rs.10 lakhs and even made an attempt on her life with a new blade by inﬂicting a cut injury on her hand. It is further alleged that A-1 has sent her back to India forcibly and she had to take shelter in her parents’ house. It is further alleged that subsequently A-1 sent her notices seeking divorce and when her parents went to the house of the petitioners/accused to question about the same, the petitioners pushed them out of the house and A-4 threatened them to report to whomsoever they desire. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners/A-2 to A-4 would contend that the thrust of the allegations is made only against the husband/A-1, but not against the petitioners. As seen from the complaint and charge sheet, speciﬁc allegations pertaining to the demand for additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and the allegations of harassment for non- compliance with the demand have been made not only against A-1, but also his parents/A-2 and A-3. Even after A-1 has returned to India, the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 have not given her any shelter in their house and, therefore, having no alternative, she had to take shelter in her parents’ house. After she received notices seeking divorce, her parents approached the petitioners and it is alleged that they were pushed out of the house. Thus, it cannot be said that there are no allegations at all against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. However, insofar as the 3rd petitioner/A-4 is concerned, who is younger brother of A-1, there are no speciﬁc allegations that he made any demand for additional dowry or he committed any acts of harassment or ill-treatment against the complainant in connection with the said demand. The only allegation made against him is that when the complainant’s parents went to house of A-2 and A-3 to question about the divorce notices, he threatened them to go and report to any one they like. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against the 3rd petitioner/A-4, based on the above said vague allegations, are not warranted, but, however, the proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2 i.e., A-2 and A-3, who are parents of A-1, cannot be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as speciﬁc allegations have been made against them prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations, however, is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that further proceedings against the 3rd petitione/A-4 in C.C.No.76 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are quashed and further proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2 i.e., A-2 and A-3 shall, however, go on. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm