IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7304 of 2008 Between: Dr.M.Srinivas and another …Petitioners AND State of A.P. and another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7304 of 2008 ORDER: The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the petitioners. They seek quashing of C.C.No.142 of 2008 on the ﬁle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, relating to oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 is husband of the de-facto complainant / second respondent. A-2 is father of A-1. A-4 is sister of A-1. A-3 is husband of A-4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are absolutely no allegations, much less speciﬁc allegations against A-3 and A-4 in this case. But the de-facto complainant as first witness and her maternal uncle as fourth witness in their statements given to the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., speciﬁcally stated that on the instigation of A-3 and A-4, A-1 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and a car from the victim, when A-1 came to Hyderabad in October 2006. It is contended that the said statements are bald and bereft of particulars like dates etc. It is a matter for evidence and it has to be elicited during trial. But as the matter now stands, there is some material in the investigation record as basis for proceeding with trial against A-3 and A-4. This is not a case where there is no evidence at all collected by the police during investigation against A3 and A-4. I do not see any merits in this petition. In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 29, 2010 Bvv