HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5436 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3 /A2 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC in PRC No. 34 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Kurnool. A-1, who is not a party herein is husband of the victim women/deceased. Their marriage took place on 30-11-2003. A-2 is mother, A3 is sister and A-4 is younger brother’s wife of A-1. The deceased committed suicide by hanging to fan with the help of rope on 25-2-2008. She has one baby girl by name Naveena, who was having medical problem for hearing. A-4 is a resident of Chitradurga of Karnataka State, where her husband resides. 2. It is alleged that A-1 to A4 were harassing the deceased since the time of pregnancy for bringing a motor cycle and also claiming additional amount from her parents and that after birth of Naveena, the accused were demanding money towards medical expenses for her as she was suffering from short of hearing. It is specifically alleged that on 22-2-2008 all of them went to Tirupathi for performing Tonsuring ceremony for Naveena and that during that time also all of them were harassing the deceased for additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Finally while leaving Tirupathi, the deceased handed over Naveena to her mother promising to go over to Anantapur on 25-2-2008 to her house. But on that date the deceased committed suicide by hanging. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only omnibus allegations were made against A2 to A4 and that no specific instances were alleged against them. The petitioners’ counsel strenuously contended that A-4 is a resident of Karnataka State and there cannot be any occasion for A-4 to harass the deceased and that even if the deceased is going to bring additional amount or motor cycle or medical expenses for Naveena, A-4 is not going to get any benefit out of it and that all the family members and relations were roped in this case. This is not a case where all the family members were roped in. Neither husband of A2 nor husband of A3 or husband of A-4 was roped in this case. Only selected members were impleaded and allegations were made against those persons only. Irrespective of deriving any benefit or not, it is alleged that A-4 also joined in harassing the deceased. There is a specific allegation with regard to harassment which took place on 22-2-2008 at Tirupathi, i.e, three days before the deceased deciding to commit suicide. The allegation of harassment was made against all the accused. 4. Truth of otherwise of the said allegations is a matter which has to be decided by the trial court after trial during which both the parties will lead their evidence. Therefore, this court does not intend to express any opinion on the prosecution case. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in PRC No. 34 of 2008 in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 12-11-2010 Mjl/*