IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6270 OF 2009 Between: Mohd.Babu Miya and another …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6270 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 C.C.No.11 of 2009, on the file of the XIII- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Based on a complaint given by the 2nd complainant, police registered F.I.R in Cr.No.407 of 2008 against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and also the complainant’s husband/A-1 and after investigation filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.11 of 2009 by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners herein/A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would disclose that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 also to the effect that on 06.02.2007, they demanded a diamond ring and a suit for A-1 and expensive clothes for other family members and also dowry of Rs.5 lakhs besides 22 other valuable items mentioned in the complaint. It is further alleged that after the complainant joined in-laws, the petitioners and husband of the complainant started demanding 500 sq. yards of site in Tolichowki and also 20,000 US Dollars. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the thrust of the allegations in the complaint is directed against the husband/A-1. It can be seen from the charge sheet that besides levelling certain allegations against the husband, the complainant has also alleged that the in-laws i.e., A-2 and A-3 have also demanded site of 500 sq. yards and 20,000 US Dollars, besides cash of Rs.5 lakhs and various other articles and refused to let her into the house without the demands being fulfilled. 5. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged and the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is, however, to be considered on evidence by the trial Court. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to thwart further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.No.11 of 2009, on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2011 Lrkm