THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5111 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Tayi Nagaraju Anuradha, W/o.Satyanarayana & another. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5111 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 along with two others are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 (Part-II), 406/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.403 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. A2 to A4 are admittedly relations of A1. It appears that both A1 and the 2nd respondent have no parents and that A2 to A4 acted as elders on behalf of A1 and paternal uncles of the 2nd respondent acted as elders on behalf of the 2nd respondent at the time of their marriage. A1 and A4 are not figuring as petitioners herein. There are allegations of payment of dowry to and demand for additional dowry by A1 coupled with harassment of the 2nd respondent. It is specifically alleged that A1 used to inform A2 to A4 about the 2nd respondent not passing on the information for additional dowry to her paternal uncles and that A2 to A4 used to harass the 2nd respondent for bringing additional dowry from her paternal uncles and that all the accused 1 to 4 used to beat the 2nd respondent whenever the 2nd respondent was requesting them to stop their harassment for additional dowry. It is further alleged that all the accused used to visit house of the 2nd respondent now and then, even after A1 and the 2nd respondent set up separate family at Rajahmundry and used to threaten the 2nd respondent with dire consequences for not bringing additional dowry. It is also alleged that the accused tried to throttle her neck and tried to hit head of the 2nd respondent to wall to kill her. It is further alleged that when A1 left the matrimonial house as per his habit and when A2 to A4 were contacted, they used to proclaim that until and unless the demand for additional dowry is met with, they will not allow the 2nd respondent to lead matrimonial life with A1. Having regard to these specific allegations made against the petitioners/A2 and A3, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner without trial. 2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 24.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5111 of 2009 DATED: 24.03.2011 ysk