HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9554 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 5/A.1 to A.5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.232 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sattenapalli. A.1 is husband of the second respondent/defacto-complainant. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. A.4 is stated to be A.3’s cousin. A.5 is stated to be A.1’s cousin. Marriage of A.1 with the second respondent took place on 09.08.1988. They have two children. It is alleged that A.1 was addicted to drinking, gambling and debauchery and began harassing the second respondent mentally and physically and that when she questioned A.1 about it, he demanded to bring Rs.25,000/- towards additional dowry and threatened to kill her by pouring acid on her face if she did not comply with the said demand and that A.2 and A.3 used to support A.1 and that A.4 and A.5 used to visit house of A.1 frequently and join with others in harassing the second respondent. It is further alleged that the accused were attributing illicit intimacy to the second respondent with some others. It is specifically alleged that on 14.06.2009 at about 9.00 P.M. on the pretext of the second respondent not bringing Rs.25,000/- towards additional dowry, A.1 to A.5 and others beat her indiscriminately and tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her and that the second respondent ran to her parents’ house along with children. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that omnibus allegations were made against the petitioners even though all of them are not residents of the same place. A.2 and A.3 are residents of Piduguralla, whereas A.1, A.4 and A.5 are residents of Dodleru. Even though allegations regarding demand for additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- by harassing the second respondent, are general in nature, there is specific allegation with regard to the incident which is stated to have occurred on 14.06.2009. In view of the said specific allegation, it cannot be said that allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that on 15.06.2009 A.1 executed Talaknama in the presence of two elders and communicated the same by registered post to the second respondent and that in the notice, A.1 specifically stated that on 14.06.2009 the second respondent was caught redhanded while she was indulging in adultery with one Reddy. Thus there is no dispute about happening of some incident on 14.06.2009. The question is whether the said incident was as stated in the charge sheet or whether it was as alleged by A.1. Subsequent divorce, even if true and valid, cannot absolve A.1 from liability under Criminal Law for the offences which are stated to have occurred prior to that divorce. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash charge sheet in this case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 27th September, 2010. PNV