HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4792 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.492 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Their marriage took place on 1.6.2005 at Khammam. After marriage, the 2nd respondent joined A-1 to A-3 at Khammam. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 is married sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. A-4 and A-5 are residents of Hyderabad. Subsequent to the developments, A-1 to A-3 also shifted their residence from Khammam to Hyderabad. 2. On a reading of allegations in the private complaint, which was referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and after reading of allegations in the charge sheet, it is evident that there are specific allegations against each of A-1 to A-5 constituting offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 demanded for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- apart from original dowry amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid at the time of marriage and that A-4 and A-5 supported them and that A-4 also participated in physical violence against the 2nd respondent along with A-1 to A-3. It is further alleged specifically that A-5 claimed influence for him as he has been working in Eenadu Daily Newspaper and threatened the 2nd respondent to accept demands of the other accused or otherwise threatened the 2nd respondent that with his influence he would see that false cases are filed against her. 3. The above allegations taken on their face value disclose the offences for which the accused were charge sheeted. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that since some time prior to filing of private complaint, the 2nd respondent has been living separately from A-1 as she left the matrimonial house and that therefore, A-1 got issued notice dated 25.3.2009 to the defacto complainant calling upon her to join him for family life and that as a counter-blast to the said notice, the 2nd respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court with false allegations and that previously no report was given by the 2nd respondent to the police on any particular incident. 5. As per allegations in the private complaint, there was counselling in the police station previously when A-1 to A-4 physically attacked the 2nd respondent. On a reading of the entire material placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that there are no legal or valid grounds to quash the proceedings in the criminal case. 6. Hence the petition is dismissed. _________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 09.06.2010. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4792 of 2010 09.06.2010 (Msr)