THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6259 of 2007 Date of Order: 29-07-2010 Between: 1. G.Srinivas Rao and others ..Petitioners and 1. The State through SHO PS Balanagar and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6259 of 2007 Oral order: Petitioners, who are charged for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.104 of 2007 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings initiated against them. The 1st petitioner is the husband, the petitioners 2 and 3 are father and mother, and the 4th petitioner is the sister of the 1st petitioner. Sri P.vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, Ramachandapuram police have registered a case in Cr.No.100 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For want of jurisdiction the case was transferred to Balanagar police, who in turn registered the case in Cr.No.178 of 2005 for the said offence. The Inspector of Police, Balanagar (L.W.4) filed a report on 27-04-2005 stating, “Action Dropped”. Therefore, the second report filed by the Inspector of Police, Balanagar (L.W.5) for the offence once dropped cannot be entertained and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the same. He further contends that going by the contents of the report, no offence is made out nor there was any demand for additional dowry to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners are abuse of process of law. He alternatively submitted that if at all there is any harassment, it is only by A1 (husband); therefore, A2 and A3 cannot be charged for the said offence. On the other hand, Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent contends that on registering Cr.No.178 of 2005, the petitioners earlier moved this Court to quash the crime in Crl.P.No.3216 of 2005 and obtained stay; in view of stay granted by this Court, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Balanagar referred the case as “Action Dropped” and submitted the final report. This Court while dismissing the Criminal Petition directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet. The police after due investigation filed the charge sheet which has been rightly taken into consideration. The entire allegations in the charge sheet clearly disclose that there was negotiation with regard to demand of dowry where the father of the complaint—L.W.2 agreed to give dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and also agreed to provide an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the flight ticket for the complainant going to America, apart from Rs.1 lakh towards Adabaduchu Katnam to A4, and there is demand for additional dowry. Therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed at the prime stage. As per the report submitted by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, the SHO, Balanagar initially filed a final report on 17-10-2005 as “Action Dropped” and no proceedings could be taken by the Magistrate since the High Court in Crl.P.No.3216 of 2005 stayed all the proceedings. On dismissal of said petition, police laid the charge sheet for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which has taken cognizance and issued the process. In the final report filed on 17-10-2005, it is clearly stated while the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer i.e. Sub- Inspector of Police, Balanagar, (L.W.4) received a copy of the order in Crl.P.No.3216 of 2005 dated 06-07-2006 staying all further proceedings in the case. Therefore, he referred the case as “Action Dropped” and submitted a final report. This Court while dismissing Crl.P.No.3216 of 2005 observed that demand of any amount for or in connection with, marriage before, at the time or after, the marriage is dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the remand report clearly disclose that the father of the complainant i.e. L.W.2 agreed to pay to the accused a sum of Rs.10lakhs and arranged the engagement function; on the date of engagement he paid Rs.3 lakhs cash, one gold ring, bracelet and chain etc. were also given; on 25-08-2004, the petitioners took Rs.5,50,000 cash, Rs.1,00,000/- towards Adabaduchu Katnam and Rs.15,000/- towards clothes of A1; on the demand made by the accused, L.W.2 went to the house of the accused and gave Rs.50,000/- to A2 for flight ticket for the complainant and having taken the said amount, the complainant was not allowed to enter into the house. The allegations would, prima facie, go to show there was a demand made by all the petitioners for or in connection with marriage. The said acts would prima facie attract the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A IPC. Hence, on the allegations made in the remand report, a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, question of quashing the complaint does not arise and accordingly dismissed the petition directing the police to complete the investigation and file charge sheet. Admittedly, in view of stay granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.3216 of 2005, the police have filed the final report referring the case as “Action Dropped”. But this Court while dismissing the criminal petition directed the police to complete the investigation and file charge sheet. Pursuant to the said direction, the Inspector of Police, Balanagar P.S. (L.W.5) has filed the second charge sheet. In view of the same, this Court do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the final report is filed referring the case as “Action Dropped”, the police cannot file second charge sheet, which was admittedly filed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on the petition filed by the petitioners themselves. This Court already concluded that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and it is not a case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. The said finding holds good. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-07-2010 Murthy