THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5584 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A.2 to A.4 along with A1 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 417, 506/34 IPC in C.C.No.7 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor District. A.1 is not a petitioner herein. A.2 and A.3 are parents and A.4 is brother of A.1. The second respondent/de facto complainant is wife of A.1. There is no dispute about the relationship. Marriage of A.1 with the second respondent took place on 17.03.2005. It is alleged that dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid at the time of marriage for purchase of motorcycle, gold and cloths and that after marriage, A.1 to A.4 promised to take the second respondent to their house after completion of her 10th class, but subsequently, A.1 to A.4 bluntly refused to take the second respondent to their house demanding more dowry of Rs.3 lakhs and 30 tolas of gold and that when the mediators called A.1 to A.4 to the place of the second respondent’s parents, A.2 to A.4 stated that their son A.1 is working as a teacher and if he married elsewhere he would have got more dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 tolas of gold. It is further alleged that in case the second respondent is going to join A.1, A.1 to A.4 threatened to pour kerosene on her and set fire to her. As pointed out earlier, A.4 is brother of A.1 and not father of A.1. Therefore, the question of A.4 stating that his son A.1 is working as a teacher, and he would get more dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- in case he married elsewhere, will not arise at all. A.4 is also working as a teacher. He has nothing to do with either taking the second respondent to A.1 for leading family life nor with dowry given to A.1 and his parents. Since he happened to be one of the inmates of the family house, A.4 was also unnecessary impleaded making untenable allegations against him also. Truth or falsity of all the allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 is a matter of fact, which has to be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties. This Court cannot undertake the same in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor District, insofar as the third petitioner/A.4 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are concerned. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 18th November, 2010 bud