IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3105 of 2010 DATE:01.04.2010 Between: Mir Hameed Ali and 2 others. …… Petitioners/Accused. And: State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3105 of 2010 ORDER: A-2 to A-4 in Crime No.63 of 2010 of Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad are the petitioners. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. A-1 is husband of the deceased woman. Their marriage took place in the year 2002. They have three children. It is alleged that after A-1 marrying second wife, A-1 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally and that the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 were always interfering and instigating A-1 against the deceased on every trivial matter and causing harassment to the deceased. Ultimately the deceased consumed poison on 17.03.2010 and died while undergoing treatment in hospital. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners are not residing along with A-1 and the deceased and that they were residing elsewhere in Hyderabad, and that on the date of suicide, the petitioners did not go to house of the deceased and that they have nothing to do with suicide of the deceased. According to the police case, there was quarrel between the deceased and A-1 with regard to the deceased going to her parents’ house in connection with marriage of her brother and A-1 refused to allow her to go to her parents’ house. A-1 was arrested on 19.03.2010 and it is stated by the police in remand case diary that still investigation of the case is pending and several witnesses have to be examined and involvement of remaining accused in this crime also has to be decided. So, it would be a premature stage either to stay or to quash proceedings in Crime No.63 of 2010 in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Truth or falsity of allegations in the report has to be decided during trial and it cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no merits in this petition. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 1, 2010 KSH