THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4938 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 BETWEEEN: 1.M.C.Subbarao, S/o.M.Subbarao & 5 others. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 & 7&8 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4938 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 6/A2 to A5, A7 and A8 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.229 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anantapur. A1, who is not a petitioner herein, is husband of the 2nd respondent/victim. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 and A5 are brothers of A1. A7 and A8 are wives of A4 and A5 respectively. It is alleged that at the time of marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 held on 30.08.2007, the 2nd respondent’s mother gave dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, gold jewels weighing 20 tolas to A1, which was received by A1 to A5 and that since the 2nd respondent was working in Government Service, A3 demanded her to pay her salary every month and that it has been complied with and that all the accused were harassing the 2nd respondent for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and that when the 2nd respondent went to the family house from her work place, all the accused refused to allow her into the house, unless she brought demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent gave the report to the police only after A1 filed Pre-Litigation Case before the Lok-Adalath and that subsequently on 06.02.2009 in F.C.O.P.No.45 of 2008, marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 was annulled by the Family Court, Anantapur. There is specific allegation of receiving dowry by A1 to A5 at the time of marriage. Therefore, taking the allegations in the charge sheet on their face value, A1 to A5 may not get any relief in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a question of fact to be decided by the trial Court after trial. Insofar as the alleged demand for additional dowry and the alleged prevention of the 2nd respondent into the family house for the sake of additional dowry are concerned, A6 and A7 being co- sisters-in- law of the 2nd respondent, cannot have any role. In fact, they were living in that house as respective wives of the brothers. In my opinion, all the family members including co- sisters-in-law were roped in this case by making omnibus allegations against all of them. A7 and A8 are neither beneficiaries nor have any participation in the alleged demand for additional dowry. 3. In the result, the petition is partly allowed insofar as petitioners 5 and 6/A7 and A8 are concerned; and the petition partly dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 4/A2 to A5 concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 17.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4938 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 ysk