THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.10658 OF 2010 ORDER:- Heard Sri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen that the second respondent (de facto complainant) is not served, but as will be presently seen that does not make any difference. 3. Both the petitioners herein, who are husband and wife, are stated to be the parents-in-law of the second respondent and they are A-2 and A-3 in Crime No.441 of 2010 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, which has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. on the report of the second respondent. 4. The plea of both the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with the allegations made in the F.I.R. and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the case by their daughter-in-law and therefore, the F.I.R. insofar as they are concerned should be quashed. 5. There is no force in this contention. I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and in fact, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited my attention to certain sentences in the F.I.R. They clearly show that the de facto complainant and her husband lived for some time at Visakhapatnam and thereafter, shifted to Vijayawada i.e., her in-laws’ place and there also, the harassment and the demand for additional amounts were made by the petitioners. Thus, this cannot be said to be a case where even if the allegations are believed, no case is made out. The allegations do disclose an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 6. In the above circumstances, it follows that there is no ground to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. So far as the arrest of the petitioners is concerned, the Investigating Officer may keep in view of Section 41 Cr.P.C. before taking a decision. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 03rd December, 2011. AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.10658 OF 2010 Date:03.12.2011 AMD