IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6489 OF 2010 Between: Kasturi Venkateswarlu and another … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. …RESPONDENT This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6489 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioners / A.3 and A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in First Information Report No. 97 of 2010 of Nereducherla Police Station, Nalgonda District, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 176 and 209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 25.02.2009 the marriage took place between the deceased Sareddy Venkatalaxmi with Accused No.1. At the time of marriage the parents of the deceased gave dowry of Rs.4,30,000/- and gold ornaments worth about Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter the petitioners and other family members harassed the deceased both mentally and physically for additional dowry. On that the deceased consumed poison in her in-laws house on 18.01.2009 and she was shifted to hospital and she succumbed to injuries on 19.01.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that to attract an offence under Section 176 I.P.C., there should be a statutory duty on the part of the party concerned to inform about the offence committed by any person. In the present case, the petitioners are not cast upon with any statutory duty to inform any offence to the officials concerned. 4. This Court also perused the entire record. It is evident from the record that the petitioners are elders of the Village and they are not directly aware of the acts of the concerned and further, there is no statutory duty cast upon the petitioners herein. Further more, the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is not covered under Section 39 Cr.P.C., which includes the duty of the general public to inform certain offences to the officers concerned. Section 304-B I.P.C. is not the one of offences mentioned in Section 39 Cr.P.C. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be proceeded for the offence under Section 176 I.P.C. 5. As far as the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is concerned, it is apparently visible from the record that the petitioners have not done anything to screen the offender or have any intention to screen the offence or evidence. As far as the offence under Section 209 I.P.C. is concerned, nothing is there to show that the petitioners have committed an offence under the said Section. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent - police have erroneously registered a case under Section 209 I.P.C. The facts of the case do not attract any offence under Section 209 I.P.C. 6. In view of the same, the present First Information Report No.97 of 2010 of Nereducherla Police Station, Nalgonda District, is hereby quashed as far as the petitioners herein is concerned. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO AUGUST 02, 2010 YVL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6593 OF 2010 July 09, 2010