BODINGARI PATTABHAI REDDY Vs. VEERAMREDDY JYOTHSNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in C,C.No. 112of2007on the file of the lll AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. The petitioners herein are A-2, A-3 and A-4 in the C.C. They are father-in-law, mother- in-law and brother-in-law respectively, of the defacto complainant. The first respondent herein is the complainant.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that marriage between A-1 and defacto complainant was performed on 1/-11 -2004 at Tirupati. At the time of marriage, parents of complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- cash and gold jewellery worth Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, the couple lived togetherat Tirupati for 12 days and thereafter A-1 left to U.S.A. The complainant also joined A-1 after obtaining passport and visa. For about 2 months, they lived happily and thereafter A-1 suspected fidelity of the complainant and harassed her both mentally and physically and also demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs. As both of them could not live together, they returned to India, reached Tirupati on 6-2-2006 and approached an advocate (LW. 6). The complainant signed on some papers due to fear. On 8-2-2006, A-1 and complainant appeared before the Lok Adalat-cum-Family Court, Tirupati and obtained divorce. Thereafter, A-1 to A-4 along with the complainant went to Chennai Airport to bid see off to A-1 who left to U.S.A. The present complaint was lodged on 18-2-2006. Police registered the case, investigated into and laid charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 120-B, 343, 506 read with 1091 PC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after obtaining divorce in the Lok Adalat, which has become final the present complaint is filed only to extract money; that from the allegations in the complaint no primafacie case for the or fences under Sections 498-A, 420,120-B, 343, 506 read with 109 IPC against the present petitioners and hence continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.