Criminal Petition No. 2904 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

and customs. At the time of marriage, as demanded by the petitioners, cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, gold and other articles were given by her parents. Thereafter, the petitioners started harassing her to transfer the property. Basing on the complaint lodged by her, police registered a case under Section 498A IPC and filed charge sheet.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners except an omnibus allegation; that the petitioners who are A.3 and A.4 are living at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, that whereas accused No.1 and de facto complaint used to live in Delhi and Chennai; that continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

One of the requirements of cruelty as explained in Clause (b) of explanation to 498-A IPC reads that harassment of the 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. When the First Information Report constitutes an offence as per allegations made therein and the investigation is still in progress, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. At this stage, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not.

Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked or exercised when there is abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice or to carry out orders passed under the Code. When the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of the offence alleged, then only the proceedings can be quashed. Any unlawful demand made by the husband or relatives of the husband is a ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC.

The allegation in the complaint would go to show that whenever Accused No.1 and de facto complaint come to Hyderabad, they used to go to the house of the present petitioners where they used to harass the de facto complainant to transfer the property, which is an unlawful demand made by the present petitioners. No doubt, it was not mentioned in the complaint on what date and in which year the unlawful demand was made. But, that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. That is a matter to be enquired into by the Magistrate during the course of trial. Prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners with regard to transfer of property, which is an unlawful demand under Section 498A IPC. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. MARCH 20, 2012 YVL _​ ​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2904 OF 2012

20.03.2012 YVL