THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4707 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 of 2009 DATED: 10.02.2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4707 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Smt. V.Laxmi, W/o. Late Nagender & 2 others. … Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent/Respondent 2. Smt.V.Lavanya, W/o. Mr.V.Shiv Raj …Respondent/Complainant CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Mr.V.Shiv Raj, S/o.Late Sri V.Nagender … Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent/Respondent 2. Smt.V.Lavanya, W/o. Mr.V.Shiv Raj …Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4707 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in these two petitions are A1 to A4 in Crime No.214 of 2009 of Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad and they are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant and he is stated to be working in Indian Army and presently working in Jammu and Kashmir State. A2 is mother and A3 and A4 are married sisters of A1. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 09.12.2004. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and thirty five tolas of gold ornaments were given apart from household articles to the accused. It is further alleged that A1 to A4 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally asking her to get additional dowry from her parents. There was separation between the parties in March, 2005 and reunion in March, 2006 and again separation on 25.04.2006. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that, only omnibus allegations were made against all the petitioners without mentioning the dates. According to the 2nd respondent, she was subjected to harassment everyday. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the Magistrate, which was referred by the Magistrate to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that it is nothing but counter blast for the divorce petition filed by A1 against her in O.P.No.351 of 2006 of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at Lalbahadur Nagar. Delay in giving report in a marital offence cannot defeat the complaint itself. 3. On perusal of the allegations in the complaint, I am of the opinion that, truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into and decide in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is stated by the Additional Public Prosecutor that, one of the two sisters was married subsequent to the marriage of A1 with the 2nd respondent. But by the time of filing of the private complaint, both the sisters were married sisters. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to come to the conclusion that the present private complaint is a counter blast for the divorce petition filed by A1. 4. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, the sisters, who are A3 and A4, shall not be arrested pending investigation and till filing of charge sheet/final report. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 10.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4707 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 of 2009 DATED: 10.02.2011 Ysk