THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7491 of 2009 Date: 24th March, 2011 Between: D.Sangayya and 3 others … Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor and 6 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7491 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4/A2 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 506 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.385 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A2 is father, A3 is mother, A4 is sister and A5 is brother of A1 who is husband of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. A6 is stated to be second wife of A1. A7 and A8 are parents of A6. Though marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place in the year 1987, till the year 1993, there were no disputes. They have three children. It is alleged that in the year 1993, at the time of marriage of Anjaiah who is the 2nd respondent’s brother, there was demand of one tola of gold by the accused and that trouble started thereafter. Even though there were allegations of ill- treatment of the 2nd respondent even prior to 1993 by A1 to A5, it was not for the sake of any dowry or presents. They were only household bickerings. Both A1 to A5 and the 2nd respondent were related to each other even prior to her marriage. It is alleged that A1 to A5 used to threaten that A1 would go for another marriage in case their demand for gold is not met. It is specifically alleged that A1 to A5 used to harass by beating and abusing her in filthy language to bring additional dowry by way of gold and land and that A4 and A5 warned that if she did not bring additional dowry they would get A1 married to another girl. According to the 2nd respondent, on 25-11- 2007, marriage of A1 with A6 was performed. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that date of beating of the 2nd respondent by the accused was not mentioned and if really there was harassment from the year 1993, the 2nd respondent would not have failed to give report to the police. 2. The offence under Section 498-A I.P.C is one relating to married life of the 2nd respondent. It is not an offence against body or against property where the offences are complained immediately after they are committed by specifying dates and times. But when the offence under Section 498-A is committed during the course of marital life of two individuals, the woman will not report against her husband and in-laws on each and every occasion of harassment, with the apprehension that her marital relationship will be at stake or with the fond hope that there may be re-union. When the above two chances are not there, then only the wife comes out and gives report to the police. In this case, though the 2nd respondent waited and waited, ultimately A1 is stated to have married second wife on 25-11-2007. Therefore immediately the 2nd respondent rushed to Court and filed private complaint on 12-12-2007 thinking that there is no ray of hope of re-union between her and A1 as there was intervention by a second wife in-between them. According to the 2nd respondent, A2 to A5 are responsible not only for harassment for the sake of gold and land but also for A1’s second marriage with A6. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and in the charge sheet has to be decided by the trial Court after full trial. This Court does not find any reason to quash the prosecution of the petitioners/A2 to A5 without trial. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 24th March, 2011 KSM