HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2520 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.249 of 2007, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, registered in respect of offences punishable under Sections 324, 342, 354, 498-A and 511 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A.1 to A.7 the Respondent is the defacto complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Prosecution Case. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The marriage of A.1 and V.K. Manipadma/L.W.1 (for short ‘ the de-facto complainant’) was performed on 20.03.2003 and at the time of their marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant viz., V. Krishnamurthy and V.Saradamma (L.Ws.2 & 3) gave cash of Rs.4,00,000/-; 2 Kgs of silver ornaments and ten tolas of gold ornaments to A.1 as dowry and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. A.2 to A.7 are relatives of A.1 and all of them are residing in one room of a house. A.1 and the de-facto complainant lead happy marital life for some years and they were blessed with one male child. Subsequently A.1 to A.7 started harassing the de-facto complainant physically and mentally for bringing additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and she informed the same to her parents. Then they conducted a mediation and then A.1 to A.7 promised them to look after their daughter properly and took back the de-facto complainant to their house. However after few days again A.1 toA.7 started harassing the de-facto complainant for bringing additional dowry and threatened to kill her and also threatened that otherwise second marriage of A.1 with another woman would be performed. Subsequently the de-facto complainant went to her parents house and has been residing with her parents. As the matter stood thus on 29.04.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. A.1 to A.7 formed themselves into a group with common intention and went to the house of the parents of the de-facto complainant and abused her in filthy language. A.1 caught hold of her tuft and beat and dragged her, whereas A.2 to A.7 beat her with hands and legs and harassed her demanding additional dowry and threatened to kill her. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.1 to A.7 that there are no specific allegations against A.1 to A.7 and further there is a move to settle the matter between A.1 to A.7 and the de-facto complainant and hence the proceedings against them are to be quashed. He has also contended that if the petition is not going to be allowed, the presence of A.2 to A.7 may be dispensed with till the commencement of the trial of the case. 5. There are specific allegations against A.1 to A.7 with regards to the alleged offences and unless the trial of the case is conducted, it is not possible to determine the complicity of them in the case. 6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of A.2 to A.7 is dispensed with till the commencement of the trial of the case. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 27-08-2011. Vjl