THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7258 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 269 of 2008 on the file of the IX Metrpolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 269 of 2008. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent with the police, Kukatpally, police registered a case in Crime No. 20 of 2008 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved for filing the charge sheet, the present petition is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 269 of 2008 on the file of the IX Metrpolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. The counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the complaint against the present petitioners is motivated only to harass them though there are no specific allegations against them and in any view of the matter, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. The 2nd respondent Smt. Pandravada Adilakshmi Sesha Kameswari filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station and in turn the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 20 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, 2nd respondent was examined besides examining the other witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. The police after due investigation filed charge sheet observing that the 2nd respondent suffered with domestic violence by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs and that her husband was puppet in their hands. Thus Accused Nos. 1 and 2 harassed P.W.1 and subjected her to cruelty. As per the averments in the charge sheet Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are absconding and a request was made to issue Non Bailable Warrants against Accused Nos. 2 and 4. Due to stalling of the proceedings under stay orders, the trial Court could not proceed with the trial of the matter. As seen from the averments in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent there was no consummation of marriage between her and her husband and her husband is postponing the same on one pretext or other. As she unable to bear the harassment by her husband and family members of her husband, there was no other alternative except to go to her parents house and accordingly, on 26.5.2007 she came to her parents house and informed the situation in her in-laws house. On 30.5.2007 she put-forth the matter before the elders, before them they admitted their guiltiness and promised to look after her with care and affection and the same was given in writing. Basing on the undertaking letter, she has withdrawn her earlier report and started living separately at Rajendranagar at the instance of her husband. On 7.10.2007 her husband left quarters at Rajendranagar without informing her and after 10 days he came and demanded her to go to her parents house. To her surprise and dismay, she came to know that her husband filed O.P. for divorce on 1.10.2007 before the Senior Civil Judge Court vide O.P.No. 643 of 2007 and she appeared in the said Court on 20.12.2007 and on 21.12.2007 two persons accosted her brother near their house and demanded not to contest the matter if they want to save the marriage. Again on 5.1.2008 at 6- 30 p.m. an unidentified youth attacked her at Vasanthanagar(Hyder Nagar Bus stop) and threatened to see her end if she contest the O.P.No. 643 of 2007 filed by her husband. All these circumstances shows the character of the husband of the petitioner. Unless a full pledged trial is undertaken and evidence is adduced on either side, it is premature to give any finding basing on the petition filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the present petition is premature and the petitioners can agitate those grounds before the Court below. With these observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ 29.3.2011 CHV