IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3706 OF 2010. Date:26.04.2010 Between:- Valdas Bheemaiah Goud and others ..Petitioners/A-2 to A-5 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 4/A-2 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A and 506 I.P.C. in C.C.No.864 of 2008 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar, Cyberabad along with A-1. A-1 is husband of the second respondent/defacto complainant. A-2 is father, A-3 is mother, A-4 is brother and A-5 is married sister of A-1. 2. The second respondent and A-1 belong to two different castes. They were working at Hyderabad. The second respondent’s native place is Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. It is alleged that the second respondent and A-1 loved each other and in August, 2006, both of them went to Mantralayam and there was marriage between them by way of tieing thalibottu around neck of the second respondent by A-1 in the temple. Subsequently, A-1 and the second respondent lived together. It is alleged that after coming to know that the second respondent’s parents are rich people owning expensive properties in and around Vijayawada, A-1 began harassing the second respondent for dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- on the ground that both of them belong to two different communities and as her father was having huge properties and that the second respondent pledged gold necklace and brought money and gave the same to A-1 for developing his consultancy business at Dilsukhnagar and that finally, on 11.08.2008, A-1 came to their house, took away all photographs and other belongings and clothes; and switched off his mobile phone without assigning any reason and that A-1 phoned up to her and also threatened her and asked her to live separately from him and that on 25.08.2008, the second respondent along with her family friends and brother, went to house of A-2 and that A-2 to A- 5 disowned her and refused to accept her as daughter-in-law and expressed their ignorance about their son’s marriage with the second respondent. 3. It is contended that no specific allegations are made against A-2 to A-5 with regard to any of the offences under Sections 420, 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and that all the allegations in the charge sheet as well as in statement of the second respondent under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. were against A-1 only and not against the other accused. 4. When the victim has gone to her parents-in-law’s house along with her family friends and relations, family members of A-1, who are A-2 to A-5, are not expected to pretend ignorance of marriage and on the other hand, they should have called A-1 and should have resolved dispute between A-1 and the second respondent. Instead, it is alleged that they pretended ignorance and have shut doors on their face. It prima facie suggests that A- 2 to A-5 are in hand in glove with A-1. Of course, it is a matter for evidence during trial and a matter for inference by the trial Court after recording entire evidence. At this stage, any observations made in this regard would only affect case of A-2 to A-5. At this stage, it can be safely concluded that this is a matter for trial and not a matter which can be nipped at bud by way of quashing the proceedings. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 26th April 2010 AMD