IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.6027 of 2010 Between: Prof. Dr. S. Srikrishna & 2 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.6027 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.79 of 2010 of PS Puttaparthy, Anantapur district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.79 of 2010 against the petitioners and A.1 for the offence under Section 498-A, 384, 406, 420 and 109 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners 1 and 2-A.2 and A.3 are the parents, 3rd petitioner-A.4 is the sister of A.1. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 took place on 26.04.2007 and at the time of the marriage, her father gave Rs.6 lakhs towards dowry and also 60 tulas of gold worth Rs.8,40,000/- and silver articles weighing 20 Kgs worth Rs.3,80,000/-, besides other valuable house-hold articles and also silk saree worth Rs.10,000/- and cash of Rs.10,000/- to A.4. The complainant further alleges that ever since she joined the matrimonial home on 29.04.2007, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty demanding additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and also a new car. She further alleges that her husband subjected her to physical assault for her failure to meet the demand for additional dowry and new car. It is further alleged that in May 2007 she accompanied the accused to attend the function at Ongole and they stayed in a hotel and at about 12.30 in the mid night, A.1 beat her inhumanly and A.2 and A.3 instead of questioning A.1, started abusing the complainant over her failure to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and a new car. It is further alleged that with great difficulty she reached the reception of the hotel and from there, she telephoned to her father and thereafter, her father brought her to Puttaparthy. She further alleged that one week later, she rejoined the matrimonial home but the harassment continued and so her father sent elders to mediate the issue, but the accused did not allow the elders to enter their house. It is further alleged that on 09.02.2008 she gave birth to a male child and A.1 did not even bother to come and see her and on the other hand, started suspecting her fidelity. It is further alleged that on the advise of the Family Court, she again went to the matrimonial home but harassment and ill treatment continued. On 02.04.2010 her brother and mother came to Tirupati and with the help of SV University Police, she was rescued and brought to Puttaparthy. 4. It can be seen from the contents of the complaint that specific allegations have been made with reference to various dates and events as to the nature and extent of the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant and how it continued unabated in spite of the complainant rejoined the matrimonial home on several occasions. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can come out only after due investigation. The fact however remains that very specific allegations have been made to the effect that the accused have been demanding additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and also a new car and subjected the complainant to ill treatment and cruelty over the said demand. The names of the witnesses in whose presence, such attempts were made and the names of the elders, who tried to mediate the disputes, are also mentioned in the FIR. 5. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations are made in the complaint, it is a matter eminently suited for thorough investigation to bring out the truth or otherwise thereof. It is well established principle of law that inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with due care and caution and sparingly and cannot be invoked to thwart further investigation, that too at the threshold stage and especially where the complaint discloses specific allegations against the petitioners. Having regard to the fact that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie attracts the ingredients of the alleged offences and they deserve to be investigated into, it is considered not a fit case at all to stall further investigation by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2010 bss