IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1788 OF 2009 Between: D. Vinaykumar, s/o Bala Govindaiah Aged 27 years, 0cc. Business, r/o Gandhinagar, Kambham village, Prakasam district & 2-Ors. … Petitioners V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A. Sudhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 1788 OF 2009 O R D E R : Heard the counsel on record and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2 of 2009 on the file of Second Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, arising out of Cr.Nbo.5 of 2008 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Tirupati. 3. It is stated that on a complaint given by second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Cr.No.5/2008 against the petitioners and three others for the offences under section 498-A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The allegations in the FIR are as hereunder: A-1 is the son of A2 and A4 and the first petitioner is the younger brother of A1 and petitioners 2 and 3 are the sisters of A1. It is stated that the second respondent alleged that the petitioners and other accused in the above case harassed her. It is further alleged that while she was studying MBA in Bharati University, Chennai she got acquaintance with A-1, B. Vijay Kumar who was also studying MBA in the same University and A1 impressed her and both fell in love and got married on 09-2-2008 at Arya Samajam, Guntur and they both registered their marriage at Guntur in the Registrar Office. It is further alleged that A1 took the second respondent to his house situated at Yedlapadu in Guntur and after some time she came to know that about the real nature of her husband and her inlaws. It was further alleged that the petitioners and other accused harassed the second respondent to bring additional dowry and harassed physically. It was further alleged that the second respondent escaped from the house of her inlaws and went to her parents house at Tirupati and on 29-8-2008 her husband, her brother-in-law and some others came to her parents house and threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened her not to lodge any complaint to police. The police registered the above case and investigated the same and filed charge sheet against the petitioners and three others. It is stated that the entire case is a cooked up and there is no iota of truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that the marriage in between the second respondent and A1 is a love marriage and there was no involvement of elders in the said marriage. It is stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the family affairs of the second respondent and first accused and he is residing separately at Kambham village, Prakasham district for the last 12 years and he did not visit even once his parents house during the period the second respondent resided there and he did not see even the face of the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent is married to one VV Ramana Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, 17 years back and recently her husband was transferred to Guntur and for the last several years they had no connection with the family of second respondent and A1 and she was falsely implicated only to harass her and her family. It is stated that the third petitioner has no connection with the family of second respondent and A1 and she got married 15 years back and is residing at Tenali and she has nothing to do with the family affairs of A-1 and 2nd respondent and she was falsely implicated with an intention to harass her and her family. It is also stated that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and a vague allegation was levelled against them in the FIR itself. It is further stated that the petitioners did not commit any offence much less the offence that was levelled against them in the above case. 5. This court did carefully gone through the allegations made in the charge sheet. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances, since there are no specific allegations as against A5 and A6 i.e., the second and third petitioners, the proceedings in CC.No.2 of 2009 on the file of Second Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and so far as they relate to A5 and A6 i.e., the second and third petitioners are hereby quashed to said extent. 7. The Criminal Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________________ JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA. 04-03-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1788 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No. 47 Date: 04-03-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L