IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2010 DATE:11.06.2010 Between: Pasupuleti Vani and another …… Petitioners/Accused. And: The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A-6 and A-7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109 and 34 I.P.C along with A-1 to A-5 in C.C. No.179 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahaboobnagar. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1 A-2 is mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners 1 and 2/A-6 and A-7 are sisters of A-2. On reading of statement of the victim given to the police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, it is evident that specific allegations are made against A-6 and A-7 also along with A-1 to A-5 with regard to harassment of the victim and more particularly questioning the victim when she returned from her parents’ house, as to why she returned from her parents’ house without bringing additional dowry as demanded. It is alleged that additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- is demanded. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that utterances of each of A-6 and A-7 separately are not mentioned and that no dates of the incidents are mentioned. To mention dates, one has to maintain a dairy. Simply because dates of incidents during the course of long period of cohabitation of the victim with A-1 are not mentioned, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on that ground alone at this stage. The above prosecution allegations taken on their face value disclose the offences for which the petitioners are charge sheeted. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact and this Court cannot go into the said question in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2) It is further contended that when A-1 filed a criminal case against the 2nd respondent and her parents for offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C etc., as a counter blast this case is foisted by the 2nd respondent. It is a matter for appreciation of circumstances and evidence to be adduced by both the parties in the lower Court during trial. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in this case without trial. 3) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 11, 2010 ksh