THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4822 OF 2009 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: Lingm Taraka Rama Rao and another …..Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4822 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Chakrapani, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmudry, East Godavari District (trial court). The offences alleged in the above case against them are those punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. The petitioners are stated to be the brothers of the husband of de facto complainant. In the charge sheet, only a single sentence is mentioned about their complicity and it is stated that accused No.1 in the case i.e. husband of the de facto complainant is demanding her and her parents to get additional dowry by way of gold and cash and other properties at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 or on their encouragement. Basing upon this sentence the learned counsel for the petitioners says that the charge sheet allegations do not make out any case against the petitioners and therefore the case against them should be quashed. I am however unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the following reason. 4. It may be noted that the copies of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the parents of the de facto complainant would show that these two petitioners have also made demands for cash and gold ornaments with a threat that they would advice the de facto complainant’s husband to take divorce from her. Of-course whether these allegations are true or not has to be decided by the trial court. From the above material, it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations even if believed to be true do not disclose any offence at all. 5. In the above circumstances it follows that this criminal petition should fail and it is accordingly dismissed. Notice to the respondent No.2 herein has not been given, but it does not matter in view of the opinion expressed on merits. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 7th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4822 OF 2009 DATE: 07.12.2011