IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.208 OF 2009 Between: P. Chandra Sekhar Rao & 5 others … Petitioners And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. P. Sriveni … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.208 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 6/A2 to A7 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act previously in Crime No.179 of 2008 of Begumpet Women Police Station, Hyderabad, and presently in C.C.No.285 of 2009, on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. A1 who is not a petitioner herein, is husband of the second respondent/de facto complainant. The petitioners are parents, maternal uncle, brothers and sister-in-law of A1. 2. The petitioners filed this petition for quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.179 of 2008. It is stated that though interim stay was granted on 22.01.2009, the police completed investigation of this case and filed charge sheet on 20.02.2009. Prima facie, there appears to be some communication gap with regard to the interim stay order passed by this Court. The police after investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 and A5 only and deleting A4, A6 and A7 from this case. Thereupon, the second respondent filed protest petition by way of Crl.M.P.No.1685 of 2010 in C.C.No.285 of 2009 against deleting three of the accused from the case. The lower Court by order dated 03.05.2010, allowed the protest petition and took cognizance of the case against A4, A6 and A7 also. Thus, as the matter now stands, the case is pending as against all the petitioners herein in the lower Court. 3. There is no dispute about marriage of the second respondent with A1 on 14.06.2006. There is no dispute about both of them living separately since 27.09.2008. A1 filed O.P.No.667 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada, against the second respondent for divorce under Section 13 (i) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce. It is stated that the said divorce petition was transferred from Vijayawada to the Family Court, Secunderabad, and is now re-numbered as O.P.No.182 of 2008. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but malafide and the present case is only a counter blast for the divorce petition filed by A1. Having regard to the allegations of payment of dowry at the time of marriage and also the allegations of harassing the second respondent coupled with demand for additional dowry, etc., made by the second respondent against all the petitioners, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act do not exist in this case, when the allegations are taken on their face value. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a matter for trial before the lower Court. After both the parties leading evidence, the lower Court will decide about truth of the said allegations on the basis of evidence to be let in by the parties. Simply because a divorce petition was filed by the husband in anterior point of time, it cannot be concluded that prosecution is not a bonafide one or is filed as a counter blast for the divorce proceedings. It is a matter to be appreciated by the lower Court at the time of final disposal of the pending case before it. 5. It is stated that during pendency of this Criminal Petition, this Court passed interim order in favour of the petitioners preventing their arrest during investigation. Therefore, the petitioners’ counsel prayed for extension of the said order even during pendency of the criminal case in the lower Court also. A5 was already arrested by the police on 13.01.2009 itself and subsequently, he is stated to have been released on bail. 6. In the circumstances, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6/A2 to A4, A6 and A7 are at liberty to surrender before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, on or before 14.10.2010, in which event they shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each together with two sureties each for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the same Magistrate. Till 14.10.2010, the petitioners shall not be arrested. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 17, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.208 OF 2009 September 17, 2010 KL