ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.349 of 2018 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle. The petitioner herein is A.2 in the said Calendar Case.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Basing on a report lodged by 1st respondent-defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime No.39 of 2017 of Women police station, Anakapalle, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioner/A.2 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 506 and 109 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows.

1st respondent-defacto complainant is wife of A.1. Their marriage was performed on 19.05.2015. On the demand made by A.1, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 5 tulas of gold, Rs.70,000/- for purchasing a motor bike and Rs.1,00,000/- for sari samanulu, as dowry besides cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, as A.1 is working as a Constable in Police Department. After marriage, the couple lived in police quarters, K.G.H. down, Visakhapatnam. Some time after the marriage, A.1 started subjecting her to cruelty demanding additional dowry from her parents. The couple was blessed with a female baby.

In September, 2016, when 1st respondent-defacto complainant was washing clothes, she noticed a slip in the trouser pocket of A.1 which contained naming function details of Baby Kelvin. When she questioned A.1 about the baby, A.1 annoyed and informed that he was having intimacy with petitioner/A.2 and the baby was blessed to them. Since then, he accelerated his cruelty towards 1st respondent-defacto complainant and her daughter, and started threatening with dire consequences. Unable to bear the harassment, she informed the matter to her parents, who placed the matter in panchayat, wherein A.1 admitted his guilt and assured that he would take care of 1st respondent-defacto complainant well. But, there was no change in the attitude of A.1. He used to come home late in night in drunken state, and when 1st respondent-defacto complainant questioned, he used to beat her indiscriminately. In March, 2017, A.1 demanded 1st respondent-defacto complainant to bring Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry from her parents as he intended to purchase a car, and when she expressed inability of her parents, A.1 beat 1st respondent-defacto complainant and her daughter with stick, as a result of which, she received bleeding injury on her forehead and her daughter got fracture on her right shoulder. A.1 rendered treatment to them at K.G.H. and A.M.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Since she did not bring additional dowry from her parents, A.1 dropped her and her daughter at the house of her parents at Mamidipalem with a warning to return back with the amount demanded by him. Hence, the report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner/A.2 is second wife of A.1 and there is absolutely no offence made out as against her. He took this Court to the allegations in the First Information Report, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet and submits that no offence has been made out as against the petitioner/A.2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for 1st respondent-defacto complainant contended that the allegations in the First Information Report, recitals in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the charge sheet clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner/A.2 for the offences alleged as against her, and in view of the specific accusations, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

6. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd respondent-State opposed the quashment of the charge sheet on the ground that there are averments contained in the charge sheet and the First Information Report as against her, and truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be de