HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2126 OF 2006 Date: 23.11.2009 Between: Dronamraju Suryarama Rao and 2 others. …..Petitioners And: State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor and 2 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2126 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused 2 to 4 (A-2 to A-4) for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.4730 of 2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad relating to offence punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. 2) The defacto-complainant, namely the third respondent, is wife of the second respondent/A-1. A-1 is not figuring as one of the petitioners in this petition. A-2 and A-3 are parents and A-4 is younger brother of A-1. Marriage of the third respondent with A-1 took place on 22.05.2002. After marriage, the third respondent joined the 2nd respondent (A-1) at Bhimavaram, where A-1 to A-4 were living together. Previously, on report given by third respondent, Pedavegi Police of West Godavari District registered case in Crime No.134 of 2004 on 06.07.2004 against A-1 to A-3 for offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 I.P.C. Subsequently the said case was settled before Permanent Lok Adalat, Eluru on 20.12.2004 and consequently A-1 to A-3 were discharged for the said offence in Crime No.134 of 2004 of Pedavegi Police Station. Subsequently respondents 2 and 3 shifted their residence to Cyberabad and lived together. A-2 and A-3 continued to live at Bhimavaram. A-4 has been working as lecturer in Chaitanya college at Kukatpally. It is stated that in pursuance of compromise before permanent Lok Adalat, A-2 gifted two shops in favour of minor daughter of respondents 2 and 3, keeping the third respondent as her guardian. 3) Even after shifting their residence to Cyberabad, there appears to be some differences and quarrels between the couple and it resulted in giving the present report to Chandanagar Police, who registered the same as case in Crime No.305 of 2005 for offence punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. against A-1 to A-4. After investigation, Chandanagar police filed charge sheet which was registered as C.C. No.3730 of 2005 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-2 and A-3 are not residents of Hyderabad and they are residents of Bhimavaram and that A-4 is working as a lecturer and living separately from the respondents 2 and 3 and that even as per allegations in the charge sheet as well as in the first information report, there is no complicity for A-2 to A-4 in this case. No doubt, several ghastly allegations were made by the third respondent against A-1 in her report to the police. In so far as A-2 to A-4 are concerned, the defacto-complainant alleged that whenever A-2 and A-3 came to Hyderabad, they were threatening her and that they were also threatening her by phone and that A-4 also began interfering in her family affairs and used to threaten her by saying that she escaped at Bhimavaram and as to how she would escape at this place as he has got influence of Director of Chaitanya College. Thus, it is complaint of the defacto- complainant that A-2 to A-4 were also threatening her and were harassing her and were behaving cruelly towards her by hurling threats. When there are specific allegations of harassment and cruelty made by the defacto- complainant against A-2 to A-4 in her first information report, which were believed by the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to close the matter in so far as A-2 to A-4 are concerned. It is a matter for trial and to be decided by the lower Court whether allegations made by the defacto-complainant against A-2 to A-4 are true and believable. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings against A-2 to A-4 in this petition. 5) In the result, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23rd December, 2009 KSH