Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Simply because no specific overt acts are attributed against some of the petitioners, it cannot be said to be a ground to quash the proceedings against them. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC reads as under: “Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC: harassment of woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

CRLP 123 / 2013

CRLPSR 46 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT GARAPATI VEERA PRASADA RAO & 3 OTHERS   VS THE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER PET.ADV. : RAJU RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.R DISTRICT:  RANGA REDDY

FILING DATE:  02-01-2013 POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSION DISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  DIS REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013 LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013 STATUS   :  ---------

HON'BLE JUDGE(S): K.C.BHANU

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.123 OF 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.854 of 2012 of Kukatpalli Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.      The petitioners herein are A-2 to A-5 and respondent No.2 herein is the de facto complainant in the above crime.  It is alleged in the complaint that on 03.06.2010, marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with A-1; that at that time, her parents gave
13 tulas gold, Ac.2.00 of land, Rs.40,000/- cash towards adapadachu lanchanams and Rs.12,000/- towards household articles; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child; that thereafter, A-1 along with his parents harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally in one way or the other and hence, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3 are residents of Chennai andBangalore; that no specific allegations are levelled against them including petitioner No.4 and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4.      At the initial stage of the registration of First Information Report, the Court has to see whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint made out a cognizable offence or not.  Once it is found that the allegations made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the Police to conduct investigation.

5.      During the course of investigation, after examination of the witnesses, if all the petitioners are found to be involved in the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC, then there is no legal bar for filing charge sheet against the petitioners.  Simply because no specific overt acts are attributed against some of the petitioners, it cannot be said to be a ground to quash the proceedings against them. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC reads as under:

“Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC:

harassment of woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

6.      In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that some of the petitioners demanded one crore rupees towards additional dowry. Therefore, a cognizable offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners and hence, question of quashing the proceedings in the above crime does not arise.

6.      Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.   Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

______________

K.C. BHANU, J

04.01.2013

KH