THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2104 of 2007 Dated: 10th FEBRUARY, 2010 Between: Ch.Ravinder And another. …Petitioners/Accused AND The State of A.P. through SHO, Mahbubnagar Rural P.S., rep By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2104 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 (A-3 and A- 4) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.751 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahbubnagar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324/34 I.P.C. As per FIR given by the second respondent / defacto complainant, offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. was committed by A-1 and his younger brothers namely Ch.Madhukar, Ch.Sunil and Ch.Sastry. It is contended that name of A-3 is not mentioned in the FIR. But, in statements recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., name of A-3 was also mentioned as one of the persons who attacked the defacto complainant. So it is a question of fact and appreciation of evidence as to whether A-3 also participated in the offence of attacking the defacto complainant with deadly weapons. This Court cannot go into the said question and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even though FIR was registered for offence punishable under Section 324/34 I.P.C. alone, after investigation, the Mahbubnagar Rural police filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for offence punishable under Section 498-A also along with offence punishable under Section 324/34 I.P.C. It is stated in the charge sheet that A-1 used to harass the first respondent’s sister who is A-1’s wife on instigation of his brothers A-2 to A-4. Except making omnibus allegations against A-2 to A-4, no specific overt acts were attributed to any of the petitioners as against A-1’s wife who is sister of the defacto complainant. Placing reliance on Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu[1] of the Supreme Court and Atluri Ravindra Vs. State of A.P.[2] of this Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the absence of specific overt acts relating to cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C. against any of the petitioners, charging them for that offence is not warranted. In that view of the matter, the petitioners who are A-3 and A-4, are entitled for relief in this petition, insofar as offence punishable under Section 498-A is concerned. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.751 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahboobnagar against the petitioners 1 and 2 (A-3 and A-4), insofar as offence punishable under Section 498-A is concerned. The criminal petition is partly dismissed insofar as offence punishable under Section 324/34 I.P.C. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2010 Bvv [1] 2005 (2) Supreme 381 [2] 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 82