SANAPAREDDY MAHEEDHAR SESHAGIRI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, who are A.l and A.4, filed the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2002 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) It is alleged in the charge-sheet that marriage of daughter of the de facto complainant with A.1 was performed on 22-4-1998 at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. Before marriage, A.1 to A.4 demanded dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 50 tulas of gold and Rs.75,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam. They also demanded transfer of ground floor of H.No.10-4-503/ A3, Sreeram Nagar Colony, Masabtank, Hyderabad in favour of A.1 or A.2. L.Ws.l and 3 agreed to pay Rs.4.00 lakhs cash, 60 tulas of gold, Rs.75,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam and to bequeath ground portion of their house in the name of their daughter, which was accepted by the accused. After betrothal, A.2 and A.3 demanded Maruti Zen Car and threatened to cancel the marriage if their demand went unconceded. L.W.3 purchased the said car after raising loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs from City Bank and kept it at the disposal of A.2 and A.3. Before marriage, L.Ws.l and 3 had withdrawn Rs.5,97,500/- from their respective accounts in the various Banks, borrowed Rs.80,000/- from L.Ws.l3 and 14 and gave the dowry as agreed. On 30-4-1998, A.1 flew to U.S.A. promising to arrange visa and other documents for his wife for coming to U.S.A. A.2 and A.3 initially looked after her for sometime and started expressing their displeasure for not bringing sufficient dowry. Therefore, the accused not only meted out cruelty to the daughter of the de facto complainant but also demanded and accepted dowry from LWs. 1 and 3 and criminally misappropriated Stridhanam. Hence, they are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that on 2-12-1998, daughter of the de facto complainant left the company of A.1 voluntarily and did not turn up, and from that date onwards, the wife is not living with the husband; that she was married to some other person and begot 2 children through the second husband; that on the ground of cruelty, a petition is filed for divorce which was granted by competent Court and as per the application of the daughter of the de facto complainant, all the items were returned through the competent Court; that all the offences alleged are punishable with punishment upto 3 years and therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation; that after final report, police have no power to reinvestigate into the matter; that there is no allegation of whatsoever that the present petitioner demanded dowry; that Section 188 Cr.P.C. is bar for trial of the case in view of the fact no sanction has been obtained; hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.