ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.486 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tandur, Vikarabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that the 2 nd respondent/complainant lodged a complaint stating that her marriage was performed with the petitioner/A.1 on 14.04.2022 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave 40 tulas of gold, Rs.10 Lakhs cash and household articles worth of Rs.3 Lakhs in addition they spent Rs.6 Lakhs towards marriage expenses.

After the marriage, 2nd respondent joined the company of petitioner at her matrimonial home. After ten days of the marriage, A.1 to A.4 harassed the 2nd respondent physically and mentally to bring Rs. 5 Lakhs additional dowry from her parents. It is also stated that petitioner was addicted to all bad habits and he is also having illegal affair with one Ramya due to which, he neglected the 2nd respondent, the petitioner used to come home late night daily by consuming alcohol and used to beat her. A.3-father-in-law of 2nd respondent used to mis-

behave with her in the absence of petitioner and A.4-brother-in-

law of 2nd respondent defamed her character and provoked the petitioner saying that she is having bad character. However, on

08.05.2022, A.1 to A.4 together beat the 2nd respondent mercilessly, abused her using most filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences and necked out her from the house by leaving the 2nd respondent at her parents’ house.

As such, she requested the police to take necessary action.

Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the above offences.

3. Heard Smt P.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and none appeared on behalf of 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence.

The 2nd respondent stayed with the petitioner only for five days and later she left to her parents’ house and did not turn up.

When petitioner went to the house of parents of 2nd respondent, she openly stated that she is not interested in leading marital life with the petitioner and when the petitioner proposed to place the matter before the elders, the 2nd respondent filed this complaint with all the false and frivolous allegations. When the 2 nd respondent stayed with the petitioner only for five days, it is highly impossible for a person to know the conduct and character of a person and for a couple to adjust, it would take considerable time, but in the instant case, the 2nd respondent left to her parents’ house within five days. There are contradictory statements. In the complaint the 2nd respondent alleged that 40 tulas of gold was given by her parents, but in her statement she stated only 25 tulas gold. The allegations made against the petitioner are vague in nature. In fact the petitioner is the victim in the hands of 2nd respondent. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Though notice is served on the 2 nd respondent, none appeared on her behalf.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and further he is having extra marital relationship with another woman and the said allegation requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record would show