IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Gaddam Ramana Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner (A-3) seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.141 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District arising out of Crime No.164 of 2005 of Srikalahasti Urban Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, on the ground that the allegations in the charge sheet filed along with other material, which are taken as true and correct, at this stage, shall not made out a prima facie case against him and it is continuation of abuse of process of law. 2. None appears for respondent No.2 yesterday i.e. 08-07-2010 and today also. Therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant – respondent No.2 and A-1 are wife and husband and their marriage was performed in 1998 at Nellore. At the time of marriage, parents of the de fact complainant gave Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry apart from gold jewellery and Ac.2.50 cents of land to A-1. It is further alleged that A-1 started harassing the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry and insisting her to sell away the land given to him as dowry and to give the sale proceeds to him. Further, the allegations against the petitioner are that he instigated A-1 and his father (A-2) to give divorce to the de facto complainant with an intention to perform the marriage of his daughter with A-1. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that except the vague allegation that petitioner instigated A-1 and A-2 to give divorce to the de facto complainant, there is no other allegation against him to show that he can be prosecuted further for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 5. Any wilful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health; or the husband, who is with a view to coercing to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her to meet such demand, then only it amounts to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 6. As seen from the charge sheet, except alleging that petitioner instigated A-1 and A-2 to give divorce to the de facto complainant, there are no other allegations, which, prima facie, do not attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not make out an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner (A-3) in C.C. No.141 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 09, 2010 KTL