HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6655 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is wife of A.1. A.1 is not a party to this petition. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. Marriage of A.1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 13.05.2007. It is alleged that as per demand made by A.1 to A.3, 20 tolas of gold, Rs.4 lakhs in cash, Rs.1 lakh in cash for clothes, one plot measuring 215 square yards at Almasguda and Ac.2.00 of land at Kappa Pahad were given at the time of marriage and that an agreement letter to that eﬀect was also executed on 15.04.2007 at the time of marriage engagement function. It is further alleged that after marriage, A.1 demanded to transfer the plot in the 2nd respondent’s name and accordingly it was transferred by executing a registered document on 13.07.2007 and that subsequently A.1 to A.3 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally to bring additional dowry and that in the 3rd week of April, 2008, the 2nd respondent was taken to her parents’ house for the purpose of delivery and that without visiting the 2nd respondent at her parents’ house, A.1 to A.3 contacted the 2nd respondent on telephone and demanded to sell her properties immediately and to handover entire cash to them for their business purpose and that on 16.05.2008 the 2nd respondent gave birth to male child when A.1 to A.3 went to her and demanded for Scarpio vehicle as additional dowry and threatened to give divorce if the said demand is not complied with and go for another marriage and that on 26.05.2008 on the 11th day function after birth of the child A.1 to A.3 came there with some white papers and demanded the 2nd respondent to sign on blank papers and when the 2nd respondent refused to sign on the papers, A.1 to A.3 left the function by threatening her to send divorce papers and that inspite of mediation, the accused did not allow the mediators to their house and abused them in filthy language. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent gave false report to the police few days after A.1 ﬁling O.P.No.15 of 2008 in Family Court, Rangareddy District for annulment of his marriage with the 2nd respondent on the ground of misrepresenting her age, even though she was elder to him by 6 years and that this case is nothing but a counterblast for O.P.No.15 of 2008 ﬁled by A.1. It is further contended that omnibus allegations were made by the 2nd respondent against A.1 to A.3 without there being any speciﬁc allegations. A.2 and A.3 are living along with A.1. They are no other than his parents. The allegations made against A.1 to A.3 together are not artiﬁcial. Speciﬁc allegations were made with reference to dates and events. Since the allegations against A.1 to A.3 are joint in nature, they cannot be termed as omnibus allegations. This is not a case where all the family members and relations were impleaded in this case with any oblique motive, as observed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand[1]. The case against the petitioners is a ﬁt case for trial. I do not ﬁnd any valid and legal grounds to give relief to the petitioners in this petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 3rd December, 2011. PNV [1] ACR I (2011) 1