THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2900 OF 2009 ORDER: The first petitioner/A.1 is husband of the second respondent/de facto complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A3 are parents of A.1. A.1 to A.3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.597 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal. There is no dispute about A1 marrying the second respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1999. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded and received dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 tolas of gold from the second respondent’s parents. Insofar as this allegation constituting offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, except denial, the petitioners have no specific plea of defence. Truth or falsity of the said allegation cannot be considered and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a question of fact. It is alleged that when the second respondent questioned A.1 about his father A.2 transferring landed property in the name of A.3, A.1 to A.3, demanded her to get additional dowry from her parents and began subjecting her to cruelty and that later on A.1 took the second respondent to her native village and left her. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when the second respondent’s men interfered with land of A.3, she filed O.S.No.294 of 2008 against the second respondent and another on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal and obtained interim injunction against them in I.A.No.607 of 2008 and that as a counter-blast for the same, the second respondent has resorted to file the present case against the petitioners. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that under the registered document dated 03.07.2000 A.2 transferred part of his property to A.3 and part of his property to the second respondent also and that when A.2 gave property to the second respondent, the question of A.1 to A.3 demanding for additional dowry is not probable. In my opinion, the above two contentions of the petitioners’ counsel arise during appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. This Court cannot undertake the same in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 23rd September, 2010 bud