The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations made in the complaint were specific and serious in nature, and the jurisdiction of the court to try the offences was established based on the factual situation. The court also found that the allegations made by the petitioners were not vague and frivolous, and the matter should be decided only after a full-fledged trial.

ORDER :

1. All the criminal petitions arise out of same crime number, against same respondents and the issue involved in all the three criminal petitions are also the same, but petitioners/accused are different. Hence all the three criminal petitions are being disposed of with a common order taking the Criminal Petition No. 6113 of 2020 as a leading case as it is filed by accused no. 1.

Crl. Pet. No. 6113 of 2020:

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioner/A1.

Crl. Pet. No. 5976 of 2020:

3. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioner/A4.

Crl. Pet. No. 5998 of 2020:

4. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 427/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District which is filed against petitioners/A2 and A3.

5. Sri V.R. Aavula, senior counsel argued on behalf of the counsel for the accused in all the three criminal petitions.

6. The case of the prosecution is that basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent i.e. Station House Officer of Tenali Rural police station, Guntur District has registered a case in Crime No. 272/2019 for the offences under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made in the complaint are that the marriage was solemnized on 08.6.2017 at Gowtham Grand, Tenali. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner/A1 have stated that the petitioner is running Surya books business worth Rs.200 crores and the daily income of the petitioner is more than two lakhs. Believing the same, the parents of the defacto complainant have given 160 sovereigns of gold and 25 kgs of silver and six lakhs for the engagement expenses and fifty lakhs for the marriage expenses and in addition, they have spent more than 50 lakhs for the marriage. After marriage, the defacto complainant went to Chennai along with her parents and there they have spent more than five lakhs for house hold things. After a week the defacto complainant was sent to office and all the other household work was also entrusted to her, her mother in law stopped all the servant maids and she started abusing the defacto complainant and also harassed physically.

7. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant i.e. A1, father in law, mother in law and brother in law used to scold the defacto complainant with abusive language and they use to told that the defacto complaint is utterly poor and they are not equal to that of the petitioner’s family. They further demanded two crores of money as additional dowry. When the same was informed to the parents of the defacto complainant, they have arranged 50 lakhs at one time and 50 lakhs another time to her husband. The husband of the defacto complainant i.e. A1 used to come to home late hours and used to scold her to get additional dowry. Apart from attending the office work after completion, she use to attend household works and cooking.

8. When the defacto complainant and her husband went to Germany, Switzerland, her husband i.e. A1 left the petitioner by taking away her passport and visa. Though at last they reached Chennai, the petitioner did not respond to her call and they have not picked up phone. Whenever the parents came to Chennai, they were asked to stay at hotels and they were never allowed to the house of the petitioner and they were not allowed to take lunch or dinner. After making other several allegations she finally stated that she came to Tenali i.e. parental house.

9. Basing on the said allegations, the 1st respondent had investigated the crime b