IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4382 OF 2009 Between: V. Jotsna Devi & 2 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4382 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3/A4 to A6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 109, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.224 of 2008 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, along with three others. The second respondent/de facto complainant/victim is wife of A1. A2 and A3 are parents, A4 is sister, A5 is maternal aunt of A1. A6 is husband of A5. A1 to A3 are not parties in this petition. It is stated that A1 worked as Magistrate and he is no more in service and that A2 is a District Judge. It is further stated that A6 is an Advocate at Tirupati. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A4 is a resident of Nagpur in Maharashtra State and that A5 and A6 are residents of Tirupati and that A4 to A6 were never living with A1 to A3 and that therefore, there is no possibility of A4 to A6 harassing the second respondent and that general and omnibus allegations were made against them with a view to implicate all relations of A1 and A2. Truth or falsity of the allegations against the petitioners, cannot be subject matter of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. In the report which is registered as F.I.R. in this case, it was alleged by the second respondent that A4 to A6 used to visit Suryapet frequently where A1 to A3 used to reside and that all the accused used to harass her and compelled her to bring additional dowry and also to demand her father to give share in the entire property and that when she refused to oblige them, all the accused abused, manhandled, harassed her physically and mentally. It is further alleged that when the second respondent and A1 along with their newly born child went to Tirupati for tonsuring ceremony, the second respondent was beaten by A1 at the instance of A2 to A6 for the purpose of getting additional dowry and property from her parents. It is further alleged that during the period of one year of separation, A2 to A6 came to the de facto complainant, abused her and threatened her stating that unless she brings additional dowry and also gets property transferred in the name of A1, she would not be allowed to live peacefully even in the house of her parents. Thus, there are specific cumulative allegations against all the accused including A4 to A6. They cannot be termed as general or omnibus allegations. Having regard to allegations in the report, this Court does not find any reason to stall investigation of this case against the petitioners at its threshold. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4382 OF 2009 August 26, 2010 KL