IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5112 of 2009 DATE: 17.02.2011 Between: P.Ramesh Kumar …… Petitioner And Smt.Mandanapu Kanaka Durga @ Deepthi & another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5112 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-4 is accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.72 of 2005 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada along with three others. The petitioner is maternal uncle of A-1 who is the husband of the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant. A-4 is a resident of Hanamkonda in Warangal District. A-4 is stated to be the person who arranged marriage between A-1 and the 1st respondent. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 with the instigation of A-3 and A-4 started harassing the 1st respondent demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and subjecting her to insult and cruelty both mentally and physically and that they also used to threaten her that they will ruin marital life of her elder sister Divya who is at U.S.A. Divya’s affair at U.S.A and her murder at U.S.A have no relevance herein. It is specifically alleged that A-4 phoned to the 1st respondent and demanded her to fulfil demands of her husband and parents-in-law and that A-4 also visited their family house at Secunderabad and used to threaten the 1st respondent directly. It is further alleged that on 02.05.2004 A-4 and 2 others visited house of parents of the 1st respondent and reminded illegal demands and threatened her and her parents to ruin marital life of their elder daughter Divya. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that after the death of Divya, the 1st respondent has chosen to give false report to the police who filed the charge sheet. Even though A-4 is a resident of Hanamkonda, specific overt acts are alleged against A-4 by way of not only instigating A-1 and A-2 but also he himself phoning to the 1st respondent and going to the 1st respondent both at Secunderabad as well as at Vijayawada and demanding her to fulfil the illegal demands for additional dowry. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be subject matter of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it has to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties leading evidence during trial. 2) Subsequent divorce between A-1 and the 1st respondent cannot absolve the alleged criminal activity said to have been committed by the accused previously. 3) Relief obtained by A-1’s father in Crl.P.No.4149 of 2005 during crime stage on the ground that he is resident of Muscat, cannot be extended to the petitioner/A-4 having regard to specific allegations made against him. There are no valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings herein. 4) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 17, 2011 ksh