THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1767 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in crime no.910 of 2007 of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar police station, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.3 respectively in the crime. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner no.1. The second respondent herein is the complainant, who filed the private complaint. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that marriage of the second respondent with first petitioner/A.1 was solemnized on 24.4.2003, and at the time of marriage, on demand made by the accused, father of the second respondent/complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to sisters of the accused viz. Sreedevi and Promodini, towards Adabidda Katnam, besides gold ornaments, and after the marriage, the accused started harassing the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-, and unable the bear the harassment, the present complaint is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the second respondent filed a petition for divorce after the first petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights; that after receipt of notices in the petition filed by the first petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights, the second respondent herein filed the present complaint as a counter blast to the same, and that there is no demand or harassment for additional dowry, and therefore continuation of the impugned proceedings against them is nothing abuse of process of Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the allegations in the charge sheet would make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged against the petitioners and hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. If the allegations made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged against the petitioners, the question of quashing the impugned proceedings does not arise. 7. It is too premature to say whether the present complaint is filed as a counterblast to the petition filed by the first petitioner/A.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Whether the allegations in the complaint are true or not, has to be decided by the investigating agency after collecting evidence. At this stage, this Court is concerned with the allegations in the complaint. Any unlawful demand by husband or relatives of husband is cruelty within the meaning of Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. The allegation is that on the demand made by the accused, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid towards dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter also, the petitioners/accused harassed the second respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. These allegations made out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to thwart the complaint at threshold stage when the complaint allegations disclose a prima facie case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks that interim stay of arrest of the petitioners be extended. Inherent powers cannot be invoked when there are other provisions of the Cr.P.C. will take care of the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners can as well move an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. after surrendering themselves before the Court below, or move an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the question of continuation of the interim order does not arise, and the same is vacated. 9. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the investigating agency has to conduct investigation in accordance with law. ---------------- 29.7.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1767 OF 2009 Date: 29.7.2010 Between: D.Ramakrishna Reddy & others …Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through Sanjeevareddy Nagar p.s. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1767 of 2009 29.7.2010