THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4423 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Kandula Sakuntala & 4 others … Petitioners AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4423 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 447, 323, 506-II/34 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.67 of 2009 of Kalla Police Station, West Godavari District. As per the allegations in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram which was referred by the Magistrate to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as per demand of the accused, Rs.1,00,000/- was given in cash towards dowry and Rs.30,000/- was given to A3 and A4 as ‘Adapaduchu Lanchanam’ at the time of marriage which took place in the year 1991. A1 is mother and A3 and A4 are sisters of husband of the 2nd respondent. It is astonishing to note that in this case there are no allegations of dowry payment or dowry harassment by the wife against the husband. The husband is figuring as one of the witnesses for the de facto complainant/2nd respondent/wife. A2 is husband of A3. A5 is brother of A1. In view of payment of dowry and ‘Adapaduchu Lanchanam’ to A1, A3 and A4 on their demand, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act attracts to facts of this case. 2. It is further alleged in the complaint/report that on 30.03.2009 when the 2nd respondent’s husband was not in the house at 8:00 P.M., all the accused 1 to 5 trespassed into her house and beat her with hands and legs demanding her to vacate the house and threatened that they would pour kerosene on her and create life threat to her. It is also specifically alleged that A2 and A5 tried to remove clothes of the 2nd respondent and abused her in filthy language with a view to outrage her modesty and caused insult to her. It is further alleged that when the witnesses interfered and while going away, the accused openly threatened that they would kill the 2nd respondent by pouring kerosene and by setting fire to her and to get rid of her. In view of the said allegations, it cannot be said that there are only general or vague or omnibus allegations against all the accused. It is a matter which is to be investigated into by the police after collecting evidence from the de facto complainant and witnesses. I do not find any reasons to quash FIR at its threshold. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 14.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4423 of 2009 DATED: 14.03.2011 ysk