IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1668 of 2009 Between: Nagadi Phani Kumar and others …Petitioners AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents The Court made the following THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1668 of 2009 ORDER: A-1 to A-4 in Crime No.160 of 2007 of Kothagudem III Town Police Station relating to oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are the petitioners. The second respondent / de-facto complainant is wife of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 is younger brother of A-1. It was a love marriage between A-1 and the second respondent. The second respondent belongs to scheduled tribe. The accused belong to scheduled caste. Marriage of A-1 with the second respondent took place on 28.05.2002. It is alleged that some time after the marriage, the petitioners started demanding the second respondent to bring dowry of at least Rs.5.00 lakhs and that on two occasions, parents of the second respondent paid Rs2.00 lakhs and Rs.1.00 lakh and that though for some time thereafter the second respondent was looked after properly, again the petitioners were harassing the second respondent for the sake of dowry. Admittedly, there were mediations between the two families, but it proved to be futile. So, the parties landed in Court as well as in the police station. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that prior to ﬁling the private complaint in Court which was referred to the police for investigation, the second respondent ﬁled divorce O.P. in Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that though at the time of ﬁling the second respondent appeared before the Family Court and accepted the petition as voluntary, subsequently the second respondent did not appear before the Family Court and it resulted in dismissing of O.P.No.929 of 2006 by the Family Court and that suppressing the said fact, the second respondent ﬁled this private complaint in the lower Court. It is not correct to say that the second respondent suppressed the fact of ﬁling divorce petition previously. In the complaint itself, she stated that her signatures in the divorce petition were obtained by coercion, undue inﬂuence, fraud and force. This allegation is also one of the items of harassment by the second respondent in the complaint. All these facts have to be investigated into by the police before ﬁling ﬁnal report in the Magistrate Court. These questions are of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended that omnibus allegations were made against the petitioners including the fourth petitioner who is a student. On a perusal of the complaint ﬁled by the second respondent, it is evident that no speciﬁc allegations were made by her against the fourth petitioner who is younger brother of A-1 and who is a student. The fourth petitioner was also roped in in a general fashion. This Court does not think that the fourth petitioner, who is younger and un-married member of the family, participated in the alleged harassment of the second respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the fourth petitioner is entitled for relief in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed so far as the petitioners 1 to 3 / A-1 to A-3 are concerned; and the petition is partly allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.160 of 2007 of Kothagudem III Town Police Station against the fourth petitioner / A-4 alone. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 01, 2010 Bvv