THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11030 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Station House Officer, Kalla Police Station, West Godavari District, in registering the complaint of the second respondent as a case in Crime No.53 of 2005 on 30.04.2005 on the file of Kalla Police Station, as illegal. The first petitioner was married to the daughter of the second respondent on 30.07.1993 at Tirupati, as per the hindu rites and customs. Later, it appears, some differences arose between them and the daughter of the second respondent left to her parents place, deserting the first petitioner. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. The first petitioner filed O.P.No.53 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, for restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the second respondent, who is the father-in-law of the first petitioner, filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that his daughter was harassed by them, mentally and physically, demanding additional dowry and based on it, a case in Crime No.53 of 2005 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the said Crime, the present Writ Petition is filed. The first respondent-Station House Officer, Kalla Police Station, filed counter-affidavit. In the counter- affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent a case in Crime No.53 of 2005 was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 30.04.2005, and that the investigation was taken up by the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined as many as five witnesses and all of them deposed supporting the contents of the said complaint. It is further stated that there is ample evidence to show that the petitioners were harassing the daughter of the second respondent and that the investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is cognizable and non- bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years and that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is three years. He further submits that the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent have been living apart for more than three years, and as such, the very registration of the crime against the petitioners is illegal. Though it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent are not at all staying together for more than three years prior to the date of filing of the said complaint, the same is a matter which cannot be adjudged by this Court in this writ petition. It is for the investigating parties to make investigation on the said complaint and file a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. As no other ground is urged, I do not find any merits in this writ petition for grant of the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Dated: 26th November 2009 dr