IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10418 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Shaik Ibrahim S/o. Late S.A. Sattar 2. Shaik Haseena W/o. Shaik Ibrahim 3. Syeda Zeenath Parveen W/o. Syd Inayathullah 4. Syed Inayathullah S/o. Syed Shahaliper …. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 AND 1. Shaik Neha Banu W/o. Mohd. Yaseen 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10418 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners Shaik Ibrahim, Shaik Haseena, Syeda Zeenath Parveen, Syed Inayathullah – accused Nos.2 to 5 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.245 of 2009 of Kurnool Town Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 & 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents – in – law and petitioner No.3 is the sister – in – law of the de facto complainant Shaik Neha Banu, respondent No.1 herein, and petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3. 3. Heard. 4 . The allegations against the petitioners are of harassing the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry or to go for abortion and the complaint reveals active participation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in harassing the de facto complainant. 5. In view of the active participation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- or to go for abortion, they are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant any relief to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 6. In the circumstances, it is directed that investigation and consequential steps on the basis of result of the investigation shall go on. However, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 shall not be arrested till filing of the charge sheet, if any. 7. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part in respect of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and as far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the petition is dismissed _____________________ December 10, 2009 P. SWAROOP REDDY, J KTL