HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2013 OF 2007 Date: 09.02.2010 Between: Pasupuleti Vijayalakshmi ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2013 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 3rd accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.503 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Peddapalli relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 109 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Originally, report was given by the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant against seven persons. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet. Proceedings against A-5 and A-6 were dropped previously. It is stated that this Court quashed proceedings against A-2, A-4 and A-7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent. A-2 and A-3 are father and mother of A-1. A-4 and A-5 are brothers and A-7 is sister of A-1. A-6 is husband of A-7. In Criminal Petition No.1009 of 2004, this Court (V.V.S. Rao, J) quashed proceedings against A-7 on the ground that no specific overt-acts were attributed to A-7 and that she was living with her husband separately since about seven years prior to giving of report by the defacto-complainant. In Criminal Petition No.2204 of 2005, this Court (A.Gopal Reddy,J) quashed proceedings against A-4 on the ground that no specific overt acts or allegations were made against the petitioner. No material is placed before this Court about quashing of proceedings against A-2. It is contended that except making omnibus allegations against all the accused, no specific overt act was made against the petitioner/A-3. In the private complaint which was referred by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report, it was specifically alleged that after one week of the marriage, A-3 started poisoning ear of A-1 stating that A-1 married the 2nd respondent only for dowry of Rs.1,25,000/- along with other articles whereas A-1 would have got more amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry along with gold and other household articles. Thus, as per allegations in the complaint, it was A-3 who poisoned mind of A-1 resulting in A-1 harassing the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry. Therefore, it cannot be said that only omnibus allegations were made against A-3 also in this case. A-3 is stated to be genesis for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Further, as per allegations in the charge sheet, A-2 and A-3 received remaining dowry amount of Rs.90,000/- on 28.04.1997. It is contended that in the private complaint which formed basis for F.I.R., it was stated that the said amount was received by A-1 and A-2 and that therefore, receipt of dowry amount by A-3 is false. Truth or falsity of the case cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has to be decided by the trial court after trial having regard to oral and documentary evidence to be let in by both the parties. Even though case against some of the accused was quashed previously by this Court, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to give relief to the petitioner/A-3 in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:09.02.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1484 OF 2007 Date: 09.02.2010 Gk.