IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5552 OF 2009 Between: Peerjapati Satyanarayana …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5552 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-5 in C.C.No.448 2008, on the ﬁle of the X- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the police registered a case in Cr.No.133 of 2008 against the petitioner/A-5 and four others for the oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation, ﬁled the charge sheet, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.448 of 2008. Petitioner/A-5 is stated to be the maternal uncle of A-1. 4. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet would show that various allegations have been made against the husband/A-1, parents-in-law/A-2 and A-3 and husband’s brother/A-4 making speciﬁc allegations and attributing speciﬁc overt acts with reference to the dates and events pertaining to the alleged oﬀences. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no speciﬁc allegation is made against him and he is only maternal uncle of A-1, in the charge sheet. It is alleged in the charge sheet that A-1 to A-5 often used to harass the complainant mentally and physically demanding a car and a computer. A perusal of the original complaint, copy of which is now produced, would show that even in the presence of A-5, his sister/A-2, who is mother-in-law, used to harass the complainant by subjecting her to physical acts of cruelty and the petitioner/A-5 was also extending necessary support to his sister by assuring her that he would take care of all consequences. It is speciﬁcally alleged that A-2, the mother-in-law, threatened the complainant that even if complainant is killed, she would get released with the assistance of her brother A-5 and petitioner/A-5 also endorsed the same by instigating his sister/A-2 to do whatever she wanted to do and he was there to take care of any contingency. It is, therefore, not a case where no allegation whatsoever is made nor a case where an omni bus allegation is made against the petitioner/A-5. On the other hand, in the original complaint, speciﬁc allegations have been made against the petitioner/A-5 to the eﬀect that he has been abetting and instigating his sister/A-2 to perpetuate the acts of harassment and ill-treatment against the complainant and when A-2 was indulging in such acts, A-5 was extending his support and assuring A-2 that he would take care of the consequences. In view of the said allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner/A-5, it is considered not a ﬁt case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against him. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is, however, a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm