ALURI THIRUPATHI RAO Vs. ALURI VENKATA RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition, under Sec. 482 CrPC, is preferred by A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli.

(2.) Heard Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the 1strespondent/de facto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2ndrespondent/State.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly as follows: On 17/7/2017 on the complaint of the de facto complainant/ 1strespondent herein, a case in FIR No.112 of 2017 was registered by the Atchampet Police under Sec. 498A read with 34 IPC against six (6) accused persons. The 1strespondent complained that she was married to A1 on 21/8/2005 and at the time of her marriage, her parents (Lws 3 & 4) gave cash of Rs.1,00,000.00 and gold ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000.00 and that the couple have one daughter and one son after they set up their family in Thullur immediately after the marriage. She further stated that in April, 2015, A1 had given her Rs.40,000.00 to give the amount to the parents of 1strespondent as she asked him stating that her parents needed that amount, but, before she gave the amount to her parents, one Subhani who is a Tailor in their village had taken the said amount stating that he needed it because of ill-health of his son who was hospitalized and promised to return the same within four (4) days, however, he failed to return the amount as promised. She further stated that at that time there cropped up disputes among the de facto complainant, her husband/A1 and her mother- in-law/ A2 in relation to the said amount and that taking advantage of the dispute, Aluri Ashok Kumar (A3) who is the son of her senior father-in-law, Nathani Srinadh (A4) who is the maternal uncle of A1, Nathani Sambasivarao (A5) and Kaka Chanti (A6) unnecessarily interfered in her family affairs and made baseless attributions against her and on 23/8/2015, A1, A2 and A4 beat her. It is also stated that she had informed the dispute to her maternal uncle, Narasimha Rao and so he had settled the dispute stating that he would make good the amount, if necessary, but even then again on 25/8/2015, at about 10 am, A1 to A5 beat the de facto complainant pushing her with hands and legs and telephoned to her maternal uncle, Narasimha Rao, and thereby, she returned to her maternal home. She further complained that she went to the matrimonial home many times along with her maternal uncle to join A1, but she was prevented from entering into the house stating that she had nothing to do there and asking her to stay at her maternal home only.