IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.408 of 2009 DATE:27.01.2011 Between: B.Vishnu Murty …… Petitioner And Ashok Ravi and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.408 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.51/2008 of Settur Police Station of Anantapur District. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A-2 is father and A-3 is brother of A-1. A-4 is wife of A-3. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, father of the defacto-complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash towards dowry and 50 tolas of gold in the form of jewellery. It is further alleged that after 5 years of the marriage, A-1 began to demand to bring additional dowry for his business and that A- 1 ill-treated and cruelly behaved denying minimum needs of food and clothing to the 2nd respondent and that A-2 to A-4 joined A-1 in making the demands and ill-treating. In the private complaint which was filed before the Magistrate and which was forwarded to the police, the 2nd respondent gave instances of the ill- treatment. She also filed M.C. No.4 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalyandurg against A-1. A-1 filed O.P. No.58 of 2006 on the file of Subordinate Court, Poonamalli at Chennai for divorce. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as a counter blast for the divorce case filed at Chennai, the 2nd respondent gave false complaint against the accused. Truth or falsity of the allegations in the complaint/report cannot be subject matter of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter for investigation by the police during the course of investigation. Obtaining of divorce by A-1 on 09.02.2010 in H.M.O.P.No.58 of 2006 from Poonamalli Court, will not absolve A-1 of his criminal liability if any in this crime. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that on 13.01.2009 A-1 and the 2nd respondent entered into a memorandum of compromise and that therefore this crime is liable to be quashed. The 2nd respondent’s counsel disputes the compromise. Therefore, this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the disputed question whether the compromise is true or not. 4) It is contended that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is a person aged 87 years and that at this age he had to face this criminal case instituted on false allegations. Because of his age, I propose to give some relief to A-2 by way of directing the police not to arrest him in this offence. 5) In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the investigating officer is directed not to arrest the 2nd petitioner/A-2 till completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 25, 2011 ksh