HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2882 of 2013

30 th April, 2013

Between :-

T.Shobha Rani and another. ..Petitioners

And

The State of A.P. rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2882 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in C.C.No.349 of 2012 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. They moved this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding therein. Pending the petition, the petitioner No.2 died. Therefore, the petition in respect of petitioner No.2 is dismissed as abated.

2. The second respondent is the complainant in Crime No.56 of 2012 of Begumpet Women Police Station, Hyderabad. She presented a complaint, alleging inter-alia that she has been married to T.Surya Satish on 12.03.2000 at Malla Reddy Gardens, Bowenpally, Secunderbad

as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the marriage, her parents spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards marriage expenses apart from presenting 25 Tolas of gold etc. After marriage, she joined with her husband. She has been harassed by her husband and in-laws on the ground of additional dowry. Various harassments meted out by her in the hands of her husband and in-laws have been stated in the report presented by her to the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet. The police after due investigation filed charge-sheet in the court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Secunderabad. Hence, this petition by A-2 and A-3.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no specific instances of harassments attributable to petitioner No.1, have been stated by the complainant in her complaint or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the police and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner No.1 in C.C.No.349 of 2012 amounts to abuse of process of the court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel placed on record 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the second respondent/complainant.

5. I have gone through the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of second respondent/complainant. How she has been prevented even from going out from the house and how she underwent abortion for more than once,

have been stated by her in the complaint. Instances of harassments attributable to the petitioner No.1 have been stated by her in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Such is the material available on record, further proceedings in C.C.No.349 of 2012 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in respect of the petitioner No.1 cannot be interdicted by this court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

B.Seshasayana Reddy, J

_____________________

30 th April, 2013 gm