IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3606 OF 2008 Between: N. Pedda Nagaiah and others … PETITIONERS And Nagisetty Sangeetha Lakshmi and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3606 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A1, A3 and A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 417, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A1 is father, A3 is elder brother of the de facto complainant's husband, Nagendra. The petitioner No.3 is not A5, but A4 as per the charge sheet. She is wife of A3. Peculiarly, husband of the de facto complainant is not an accused person in this case. It is alleged that at the time of the respondent No.1's marriage with Nagendra on 04.05.2003 dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and 10 Tolas of gold were given by her parents. It is further alleged that even though the husband was mentally retarded person, the said fact was suppressed and her marriage was performed. It is further alleged that from the time of her marriage A1 to A4 and other family members were harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and that they tried to kill her by poisoning her food and by hanging her and that she did not inform the same to her parents as they would be perturbed. Even after delivery of child in her parents’ house, none of the accused came there to see the newly born child. 2. Placing reliance on Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu[1], the petitioners’ counsel contended that only bald and omnibus allegations were made by the respondent No.1 not only in First Information Report, but also in her statement under Section 161 (3) recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and that no specific overt acts are attributed to any of the petitioners against the respondent No.1. As per allegations of the respondent No.1, the alleged harassment or atrocities against her were cumulative one and not individual one. It was an action against her by all the accused jointly. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving any specific overt acts against any of the petitioners in this case. Further, it is not as if any of the petitioners is a resident of house or place other than the place where the respondent No.1 lived with her husband. It was a joint family affair. Therefore, simply because no individual overt acts are attributed to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 separately, it cannot be said that a false case was foisted against the petitioners with omnibus allegations. I do not find any merits in this petition and any reason to intercept the trial in the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3606 OF 2008 July 23, 2010 [1] (2009) 11 SCC 203