IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITON No. 2900 of 2007 Between: G.Karunakar Reddy, S/o.Linga Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Resident of H.No.5-104, Veepanagandla Village, Mahbubnagar District And others. …Petitioners AND Smt.S.Prameelamma W/o.Vaikunta Reddy, R/o.Bandanagar, Wanaparthy Town, Mahbubnagar District. And another. …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2900 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.537 of 2006 relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 is husband of the victim / deceased – Radhika. A-2 is mother, A-3 is brother and A-4 is sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. Though it is stated that A-4 and A-5 are residing separately, it is evident that A-1 to A-5 belong to Veepanagandla Mandal, Mahbubnagar District. Marriage of the deceased with A-1 took place on 05.12.2001. The deceased died on 23.08.2005 at Hyderabad. Mother of the deceased gave report to the police about these offences on 19.03.2006. Simply because there is delay of about seven months in giving report after death of the deceased, it is no ground to suspect the case at this stage. It is alleged that A-1 to A-5 were demanding the deceased and her parents for additional dowry of ten lakh rupees and also were demanding registration of one plot at Champapet, Hyderabad in the name of A-1. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-3 and A-5 wrongfully confined parents of the deceased and threatened them and forced them to return original documents relating to the plot. All these allegations are questions of fact which have to be gone into and decided by the trial Court after recording entire evidence to be let in by the prosecution and also the accused, if any. This Court cannot go into truth or otherwise of those allegations contained in the charge- sheet constituting the above said offences and also probabilities relating to the same. On consideration of material on record placed before me, I do not find any valid and legal reason to quash the proceedings in the case pending in the lower Court. The petitioners’ counsel, during the course of arguments, did not press the point relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Wanaparthy. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 26, 2009 BVV