HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3625 OF 2010 Date:21.04.2010 Between: Thota Ram Manohar Lohia and others. …..Petitioners And: The State of A.P, through Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3625 OF 2010 ORDER: The 1st petitioner/A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant. A-2 is mother and A-3 is married sister of A-1. A-4 is husband of A-3. A-1 to A-4 are seeking quashing of F.I.R in Crime No.743 of 2009 of Vijayawada I Town Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 506, 34 I.P.C. On perusal of the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, which private complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, it is evident that those allegations prima facie make out the offences for which F.I.R was issued. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the previous statement of the 2nd respondent filed in Habeas corpus writ petition there was no allegation about demand for dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and that the said allegation was made presently in this F.I.R. It is a matter for consideration during appreciation of evidence either by investigating officer during investigation or by the trial Court during trial. It cannot be a ground for quashing F.I.R in this case. 2) It is contended that no specific allegations are made against A- 3 and A-4 except A-3 telephoning to A-1 and A-2 and instigating them to harass the defacto-complainant and to demand dowry of Rs.50,00,000/-. It is well settled law that F.I.R is not ‘be all and end all’ of the prosecution case. It is only a report which puts the criminal law machinery into motion. During investigation, the investigating officer will record statements of the victim and witnesses during which time those persons will be able to explain and give supporting dates and evidence to the investigating officer. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to intercept investigation of this case at this stage. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 21, 2010 KSH