IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12530 of 2010 Between:- S.Chetan Sharma and four others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12530 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-5 in Cr.No.867 of 2010 of Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Based on the complaint given by the third respondent, the police registered a case against the petitioners/A-1 to A-5 in Cr.No.867 of 2010 of Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad for the offence under Sections 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner/A-1 is the husband of the third respondent-complainant. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. A-4 is the son and A-5 is the daughter of A-2. According to the complainant, herself and the first petitioner/A-1 fell in love and their marriage was performed by the elders of both families notwithstanding that it was inter caste and inter religious. According to the complainant, she belongs to scheduled tribe lambada community. She alleges that that the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.3 lakhs as dowry, besides 10 tolas of gold and 50 tolas of silver. She alleges that subsequent to the marriage, the petitioners started harassing her demanding additional dowry and also pressing her to indulge in prostitution and earn money. It is further alleged that on 09-08-2010 at 10-00 P.M., the petitioners came to her parent’s house at Hyderabad, where she was staying at that time and snatched away her mangalasuthram and went away. It is also alleged that the petitioners abused the third respondent in the name of her caste saying that she belonged to scheduled tribe lambada community and that she cannot be allowed entry into their kitchen. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant is none other than the daughter of A- 1’s maternal uncle and, in fact, A-3, mother of A-1, also belonged to lambada community and the marriage of A-2 and A-3 was also inter caste and inter religious. The order dated 03-12-2010 in Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2010 in Cr.No.867 of 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to petitioner/A-1 shows that a perusal of the case diary would reveal that the de facto complainant is none other than daughter of maternal uncle of A-1 and the mother of A-1 also belongs to scheduled tribe community. 5. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, it is considered not a fit case to quash further investigation in Cr.No.867 of 2010 by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, in view of the close relationship between the third respondent- complainant and the petitioners/accused, it is considered that petitioners/A-2 to A-5 may not be arrested till the conclusion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet or final report, as the case may be. It is stated that the first petitioner/A-1 is already released on bail. The investigation may, therefore, go on. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed, with the above direction. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th December, 2010 Lrkm.