IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.697 of 2009 BETWEEN: Kishore Babu and others … PETITIONER(S) And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.697 of 2009 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this criminal petition which is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether there is a ground to quash the proceedings in FIR No.246 of 2008 of South Zone Women Police Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners. The said case is registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The de facto complainant in the case i.e. the second respondent herein is the wife of one Sharath Babu and that Sharath Babu is A-1 in the case. Petitioners 1 to 5 are shown as A-2 to A-6 in the said case. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and the 3rd petitioner is the sister of A-1, while the 4th petitioner is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. The 5th petitioner is the sister of the 1st petitioner. 3. I have gone through the FIR copy and also heard Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. In the FIR copy the de facto complainant specifically requested and named the persons against whom the case should be registered. However, she did not name the 5th petitioner herein Smt. Vimala as the person against whom the case should be registered. It is seen that the police however included her name also in the case. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the allegations in the FIR also do not show any complicity against her at that stage, I am of the opinion that the FIR proceedings in so far as 5th petitioner can be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. It is however made clear that if in the course of investigation which is proceeded against the first accused and the other accused that this 5th petitioner is also having a role and complicity, this order shall not preclude the police from proceedings against her also for filing a charge sheet. 4. Then coming to the case of the petitioners 1 to 4, it may be noted that a perusal of the FIR averments would read that the second respondent did make allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2 that they harassed her describing them as her in-laws to the effect that they demanded her for additional dowry or valuables and harassed her. So far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them but she named them also as the persons against whom a case should be registered on the ground that they also supported her in-laws in making demands against her. 5. Here it may be noted that the matter is still at the stage of FIR and the investigation is pending and just because an FIR is registered it does not follow that it should end up in filing a charge sheet. It is also open for the police depending upon the material gathered to close the case and file a final report also and at this stage we do not know what is going to happen. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no ground to quash the FIR against the petitioners 1 to 4 and the concerned investigating officer may go ahead with the investigation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then represented that there is a threat of arrest for petitioners 1 to 4. Of petitioners 1 to 4, petitioners 2 and 3 are ladies while the first petitioner is aged person and the 4th petitioner is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. In the circumstances of this case, the concerned investigating officer is directed not to arrest the petitioners 1 to 4 for a period of one month and in the meanwhile the petitioners 1 to 4 may apply for bail before the concerned Court so that the said Court may pass appropriate orders in the matter. 7. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the 5th petitioner and it is dismissed so far as the other petitioners are concerned. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 23rd December, 2010 CVRK