IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7671 of 2009 DATE: 29.09.2011 Between: 1. Veepuru Bala Krishna Reddy and others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7671 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A-2 is father, A-3 is mother and A-4 is married sister of A-1. Though A-4 is married, she is residing in another locality in the same town. Apart from allegations of receipt of dowry etc., at the time of marriage and allegation of looking down the 2nd respondent like a servant maid, there are specific allegations against A-1 to A-3 with regard to demand for registering Ac.2-55 cents of land by her father in favour of A-1. Except the allegation of general harassment whenever A-4 visits her parents’ house, there are no other specific allegations against A-4 with regard to demand for any further dowry or presents. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is medical evidence to the effect that the petitioner is not having uterus and overies and that therefore, she is not fit for consummation. On that ground, A-1 filed C.C. No.529 of 2009 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore against the 2nd respondent and others for offences punishable under Sections 418, 500, 109 and 34 I.P.C. On the same ground, A-1 is stated to have filed O.P. No.225 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Nellore under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage against the 2nd respondent. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the present report is given by the 2nd respondent to the police as counter blast for the criminal case and also proceedings for annulment of her marriage. Simply because there are counter allegations and counter proceedings, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the present report is given as a counter blast for the previous cases. When there are specific and direct allegations of harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-1 to A-3 for the sake of land of Ac.2-55 cents, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashing F.I.R in so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned. Since the allegations against A-4 are general in nature, A-4 is entitled for relief in this petition. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed in so far as the 4th petitioner/A-4 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 29, 2011 KSH