IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8704 of 2009 DATE: 29.10.2011 Between: Sida Reddy Sailaja and another …… Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8704 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.149 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A-2 is sister of A-1 who is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A-3 is husband of A-2. A-1 is not a party in this criminal petition. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A-2 and A-3 are living separately from A-1 and that they have nothing to do with the disputes between A-1 and the 2nd respondent. A-1 is stated to be working as Cine Assistant Director. Marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 18.02.2005. Apart from allegations against A-1, it is specifically averred that when the 2nd respondent went to her native place and returned to Hyderabad, A-1’s flat was locked and therefore she went to the flat of A-2 and A-3 in the same complex and enquired them about her husband and that A-2 and A-3 shouted at her and asked her to go back to her native place and that in spite of waiting for 10 days, A-1 did not turn up and that A-2 and A-3 physically and mentally harassed the 2nd respondent and so, she left to her native place. The said incident is stated to have taken place in the year 2005. It is further alleged that in January, 2006 when the 2nd respondent came back and enquired A-2 and A-3, they beat her and asked her not to come to their house and told her that in case she wanted to come back and to meet her husband, she has to get again Rs.25,00,000/-. The said demand for Rs.25,00,000/- alleged to have been made by A-2 and A-3 is in accordance with A-1’s demand for the same amount. In view of the said specific allegations in the charge sheet, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot escape from being prosecuted. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a matter of fact which the trial Court has to decide after recording evidence during trial. 2) No doubt in Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand[1] the Supreme Court took note of tendency of roping in as many family members as possible into cases of this nature. It was a case where the petitioners therein were residents of a different State entirely from that of the defacto- complainant’s husband. In the present case on hand, the petitioners are residing in the same complex, but in different flat from that of A-1. I do not find any circumstances herein to apply Preeti Gupta(1 supra) to facts of this case. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 29, 2011 ksh [1] 2010 Cri.L.J 4303