HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3154 OF 2010 Date:09.04.2010 Between: T.Ambedkar and others. …..Petitioners And: State, by Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, rep. By Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3154 OF 2010 ORDER: The accused Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C in Crime No.89 of 2010 of Malkajgiri Police Station. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1. A-2 is brother-in-law and A-3 is father of A-1. Previously at the instance of the 2nd respondent, the police are stated to have registered Crime No.78 of 2008 and it is stated to be pending against the petitioners and others for offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner is stated to have filed O.P. No.688 of 2009 in Family Court, Vijayawada for divorce against the 2nd respondent and it is stated to be pending. 2) It is alleged in the report by the 2nd respondent herein that A-1 to A-3 were threatening her to withdraw the case filed by her in Begumpet Police Station under Section 498-A I.P.C and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act saying that they would kill the 2nd respondent, her brother and sisters. It is further alleged that even through A-1 was having only intermediate qualification, it was falsely represented at the time of marriage that he was M.B.A graduate working as Manager in I.C.I.C.I Bank. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this report given by the 2nd respondent is a counter blast for the previous proceedings and that this is nothing but abuse of process of Court. It is also contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the report does not contain dates, places and details of intimidations said to have been made by A-1 to A-3 to the 2nd respondent. It may be noted that F.I.R is not ‘be all and end all’ of the prosecution. It is only a document intended to put criminal law machinery into motion. During investigation of this crime, the police will record statements of the victim and other witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. during which details regarding the alleged intimidation will come out. At the threshold of investigation, I do not want to interfere in this criminal petition. Truth or otherwise of allegations made by the 2nd respondent in the report will be decided by the police during investigation and after collecting evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I do not find any merits in this petition. 3) Hence, this petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 9, 2009 KSH