IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1543 OF 2007. Date:05.02.2010 Between:- Indira Dev and others ..Petitioners/A-2 to A-4 And The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.2 to 4 (A2 to A4) for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.865 of 2006 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Marriage of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant with A1 took place on 07.02.2004. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is brother of A1. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold of 350 grams toward dowry on demand of A1 to A3 and that immediately after marriage, the 2nd respondent joined her husband at Ongole and that on fourth day itself, A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent mentally and physically for bringing additional dowry from her parents and that when she expressed her inability, on the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 started beating her mercilessly and abusing her in filthy language and that when torture meted out to her was informed to her parents, parents of the 2nd respondent took A1 and the 2nd respondent to Hyderabad and gave shelter to both of them in their house. It is further alleged that even though A1 led marital life happily for sometime at Hyderabad, again when he came into contact with his parents and brother, started using filthy language and beating her mercilessly in front of her parents by abusing and threatening that he would go for another marriage if they did not fulfill his demand for additional dowry. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent lodged report on 08.06.2006 with Kushaiguda police, who registered the report as case in Crime No.348 of 2006, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet before the lower Court against A1 to A4. 3. It may be noted at this stage that on the same day i.e., on 08.06.2006, A1 filed private complaint before the Magistrate at Ongole, who forwarded the same to Ongole Taluk police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report; and the police registered the complaint as case in Crime No.280 of 2006 for offences under Sections 452 and 307/34 I.P.C. against parents and relations of the 2nd respondent. It is said that after investigation, Ongole Taluk police referred Crime No.280 of 2006 as false. Subsequently, A1 did not take any steps before the criminal court, but applied for divorce against the 2nd respondent and it is stated to be pending for disposal after trial. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only omnibus allegations were made against A2 to A4 and no specific allegations were made and that impleading parents and brother of A1 in this case is nothing but abuse of process of law. On a reading of F.I.R. as well as charge sheet, allegations were made against A1 to A4 jointly and in common and no specific allegations were made against A1 and A2 to A4 separately. Therefore, A2 to A4 also stand on the same footing as that of A1 in this case. Whether allegations made by the prosecution against the petitioners are true or not, it has to be decided by the lower court after full trial wherein both the parties will be permitted to lead their evidence. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to give relief to any of the petitioners in this petition. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 5th February 2010 AMD