IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4400 OF 2009 Between: Poola Gangi Reddy & 4 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4400 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.43 of 2009 of Thamballapalli Police Station. The de facto complainant/second respondent is wife of A1 who is not a petitioner herein. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 and A5 are brothers of A1. A5 is wife of A4. 2. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.75,000/-, several gold ornaments and household articles were given to A1 and that A1 at the instigation of A2 to A6 were harassing the second respondent for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that after payment of Rs.25,000/- as additional dowry, they looked after the second respondent well for one year, when she delivered a polio affected baby and that thereafter, her father died and that again the accused began harassing her for the sake of balance of additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- and that she was asked to give divorce to A1 as she delivered a polio affected baby. Insofar as the allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, younger members of the family may not have any role in receiving the dowry or in fixing the same. It is stated that A6 is working as a Teacher at a different village and is residing in a different village and that he was unnecessarily implicated in this case. A5 is wife of younger brother of A1. She is not the beneficiary even if any additional dowry is brought by the second respondent. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that giving the report against A5 and A6 is not in accordance with law and is abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.43 of 2009 of Thamballapalli Police Station insofar as the petitioners 4 and 5/A5 and A6 are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3/A2 to A4. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 27, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4400 OF 2009 August 27, 2010 KL