IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2981 of 2010 Between: Siliveru Ramesh …Petition AND State of A.P. and another …Respondent / Complaina The Court made the following THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2981 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner / accused is husband of the second respondent’s sister. On report given by the second respondent, Banjara Hills Police registered case in Crime No.330 of 2008 for oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. During the course of initial investigation, the police examined the victim women Smt Varalakshmi @ Meena @ Saritha. After examining ﬁve witnesses, the police arrested the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the victim’s brother is not competent to give report to the police and that when the victim did not give report, the police should not have registered the crime. There is no legal bar pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel to the eﬀect that the victim’s brother cannot give report to the police for oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is only after examining the victim as second witness, the police proceeded further in this case. Further investigation of the case is still pending. At this stage, the investigation cannot be stalled by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended that even as per allegations in the report, the wife is not joining the husband from the year 2002 onwards. It is further contended that as there is a daughter for the couple, the petitioner is refusing for divorce proposed by the wife. It is further contended that the fourth witness who is brother-in- law of the victim and who is working as Inspector of police, is the man behind this case and at his instance, the police are acting in this case. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact. It is a matter to be decided after trial in which the witnesses are examined and cross- examined. At this stage, this Court does not ﬁnd any valid or legal grounds to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 29, 2010 Bvv