The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific allegations and the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are crucial in determining the quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

(Kunuru Lakshman, J.)

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 187 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No. 2 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against her are under Section - 498A of IPC and Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State, and Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. CASE OF PROSECUTION :

As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner herein are as follows:

i) the marriage of respondent No. 2 with accused No. 1 was performed on 06.02.2011;

ii) at the time of marriage, on the demand of petitioner and accused No. 1, the parents of respondent No. 2 gave cash of 5.00 lakhs towards dowry, 50 tulas of gold; and 1,00 lakh for purchase of Hunk Motorcycle; and also 10 tulas of gold towards Adapaduchu Katnam;

iii) the parents of respondent No. 2 performed their marriage by spending 20.00 lakhs;

iv) respondent No. 2 has joined the company of accused No. 1, where the petitioner herein also resides along with them at East Pragathi Nagar, Moulali, Hyderabad, and lived there happily for a few days;

v) later, accused No. 1 used to come to the house in drunken condition and harassing respondent No. 2, both mentally and physically by abusing her;

vi) they have blessed with a female baby;

vii) thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 started demanding to get Rs.1.00 lakh towards additional dowry, otherwise leave the house;

viii) after her marriage, her father used to give Rs.5000/- per month to her and the same would be taken by accused No. 1;

ix) while she was doing job, accused No. 1 suspected her character, she left the job;

x) after that, accused Nos. 1 and 2 started harassing respondent No. 2 for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs;

xi) accused No. 1 used to say with respondent No. 2 that he has cancelled three engagements on the pretext that he would get more dowry and started harassing her demanding additional dowry;

xii) the petitioner herein used to encourage accused No. 1 to obtain divorce from respondent No. 2, so that he would get dowry;

5. With the above allegations, respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint with Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, who in turn registered a case in Crime No. 103 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences against accused No. 1 and the petitioner herein.

6. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused No. 1 for the aforesaid offences.

7. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

i) Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 is suffering with 'epilepsy' and the said fact was suppressed by her parents at the time of marriage.

ii) Accused No. 1 came to know about the same when respondent No. 2 became unconscious thrice. Therefore, accused No. 1 has filed a divorce petition vide O.P. No. 1694 of 2016 which was dismissed for default by striking out the defence of accused No. 1.

iii) There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and also improvements. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioner - accused No. 2. In fact, respondent No. 2 has beat the petitioner herein and accused No. 1, who in turn received bleeding injuries. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs.

iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 and Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P., (2019) 15 SCC 357.

v) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

8. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No. 2:

i) Mr.