IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 4720 of 2009 Between: 1 Sri D.V.V.Sudarsana Rao, S/o. Sri D.Parthasardhi, R/o. 4-47-10, Flat No.301, M.V.V.Plaza , Lowsonsbay Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sri D.Parthasardhi, S/o. Sri Late D.Sudarshan, R/o. 4-47-10, Flat No.301, M.V.V.Plaza , Lowsonsbay Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Sri D.Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Sri D.Parthasardhi, R/o. 4-47-10, Flat No.301, M.V.V.Plaza , Lowsonsbay Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Smt. D.V.S.Radha Krishna Veni, D/o. P.V.Ramana Murthy, D.No. 19-83/11, Chandrapuri Colony, ECIl Post, KAPRA , HYDERABAD-500 062 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the charge and all further proceedings in cC.No. 26/2009 pending before the Hon'ble Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kakinada , as an exceptional special case The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.BALAGANGADHARAIAH, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 4720 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners are the husband and parents-in-law of the de facto complainant. The offences alleged against them are under sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. There are specific allegations against the petitioners. Added to this, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that the first petitioner-husband filed divorce petition initially before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam that was transferred to the Family Court, Secunderabad and registered as O.P.No. 112 of 2005, where it was dismissed. Suppressing the fact of dismissal of the above O.P., the first petitioner again filed F.P.O.P.No. 358 of 2007 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for divorce, again, on the same grounds. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is unable to dispute this fact. Though the learned counsel contends that the first petitioner did not suppress the fact of dismissal of the earlier OP, he is unable to produce material to show that he has mentioned about the dismissal of the earlier O.P., in the subsequent O.P. 3. In the circumstances, as there is prima facie case against the petitioners and as the petitioners have suppressed facts, they do not deserve any indulgence. 3. In the result the petition is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:20—10—2009. *BVS