IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3130 OF 2010. Date:07.04.2010 Between:- Kemsaram Bakkamma and others ..Petitioners/A-2 to A-6 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.2 to 6 (A-2 to A-6) in Crime No.119 of 2010 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They are seeking quashing of F.I.R. in that crime, which was registered on 16.03.2010. 2. The second respondent is the defacto complainant, who gave report to the police against A-1 to A-6. A-1 is husband of the defacto complainant. A-2 is mother and A-3 is married sister of A-1. A-4 is married brother of A-1. A-5 and A-6 are stated to be maternal uncles of A-1. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that all the family members are roped in this case without making any specific allegations against them and making omnibus allegations. He also contended that the Supreme Court observed that for fault of the husband, the in-laws or other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry and that in cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4. No doubt, Section 498-A I.P.C. is making several inroads into family lives of several persons but that alone cannot be taken on their face value as ground for preventing the victim from prosecuting other members of the family, who are responsible for harassment towards her. Marriage of second respondent with A-1 took place on 11.02.2007. It is alleged in the report that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- and four tolas of gold ornaments were given and that one month thereafter, A-2 to A-6 instigated A-1 due to which, A-1 was harassing her physically and mentally and that there was mediation before elders, who subsided the dispute and that on 29.07.2008, A-1 beat her with belt severely and that A-2 to A-6 accused her that she was not useful for family life and asked her to go out of the house or else they would kill her. In the same manner, several other allegations were made against A-1 to A-6 in the report. This petition is filed on 25.03.2010 i.e., about nine days after registration of this case. F.I.R. is not ‘be all and end all’ of a criminal case. After registering the report, the police during investigation, has to record detailed statements of the victim and her witnesses. Then only clear picture will emerge. At this stage, it would be too early to conclude whether the case against A-2 to A-6 is bald or supported by substantial evidence. It can be assessed only after completion of investigation and filing of final report by the police before the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this petition at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition after final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 7th April 2010 AMD