The court held that allegations of dowry harassment and illegal conduct necessitate a trial, as inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not allow for quashing based on disputed facts.

ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.196 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A & 506 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.196 of 2018, on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

3. The brief facts of the case is that:-

A2 is the mother of A1. Marriage of respondent No.2/defacto complainant was performed with A1 on 05.02.2014. At the time of the marriage, parents of respondent No.2/defacto complainant gave Rs.6,00,000/- cash as dowry besides Rs.2,00,000/- worth furniture and five sovereign gold. After marriage, respondent No.2/defacto complainant joined matrimonial home. After three months, A1 and A2 started harassing respondent No.2/defacto complainant. A1 developed illegal contact with another lady. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant recorded the voice over cell phone and informed the same to her parents (LW2 & LW3) and they have placed the matter before elders. A1 admitted his mistake and gave it in writing. It is alleged that, A1 and A2 harassed respondent No.2/defacto complainant both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one male child. A2 threatened to perform the marriage of A1 with another woman. In spite of counselling given by the police, A1 has not agreed to continue marital life with respondent No.2/defacto complainant. On 21.12.2017, respondent No.2/defacto complainant lodged a complaint and the same was registered as Cr.No.48 of 2017 for the aforesaid offence before Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.196 of 2018 before the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that even if the entire accusation is accepted to be true, still the aforesaid offences would not attract against the petitioners herein for the reason that respondent No.2/defacto complainant was insisting A1 to establish the residence at Vijayawada and when he refused to do so, respondent No.2/defacto complainant resorted in filing the complaint against the petitioners herein. Apart from the same, he also submits that 1®' petitioner herein issued a notice demanding restitution of conjugal rights, asking respondent No.2/defacto complainant to join with him, and as a counter blast to the said notice, respondent No.2/defacto complainant filed the present complaint against the petitioners herein.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that specific allegations have been made against the accused that they harassed respondent No.2/defacto complainant both physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry. According to her, the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners are questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

7. Heard. Perused the record.

8. On a perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet goes to show that there are allegations against the A1 and A2. A1 developed an illegal contact with another lady. It is alleged by respondent No.2/defacto complainant that she recorded the voice in a cell phone. The said aspect has been gone into in F.C.O.P.No.974 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. In the said F.C.O.P. the appli