IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8324 of 2009 DATE: 29.11.2011 Between: Penumarthi Sarathbabu and others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8324 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are the accused of oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A- 2 and A-3 are parents and A-4 and A-5 are married sisters of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are residents of Guntur. A-4 is a resident of Khammam. A-5 is a resident of Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is working as teacher in Avanigadda. Her marriage with A-1 took place on 03.08.2001. A-1 is no other than paternal aunt’s son of the 2nd respondent. The allegations against the accused are to the eﬀect that they are demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. In pursuance of the alleged demand for additional dowry an amount of rs.75,000/- was stated to have been paid to the accused for the sake of marital life of the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent was being demanded to get loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on her salary and that in pursuance of the said demand, the accused were harassing the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent went to her parents’ house for delivery and delivered a child, she was not taken back to the house of the accused. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there was notice given by A-1 to the 2nd respondent and A-1 also ﬁled a petition for restitution of conjugal rights originally and thereafter a petition for divorce against the 2nd respondent and that as a counter blast for the said litigation, the 2nd respondent gave false report against the petitioners and that it is not a bonaﬁde report. In spite of giving notice for enquiry and counselling by the police, no compromise was arrived at between the parties. It is contended that there was compromise between the parties in pursuance of which Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in the name of minor boy. But the said deposit was on 02.03.2007 prior to issuing notice by the police for enquiry and counselling. Even though A-2 and A-3 are residents of Guntur, the main allegations are against A-2 and A-3 only by way of demanding additional dowry and subjecting the 2nd respondent to harassment. There are also speciﬁc allegations against A-4 and A-5 to the eﬀect that they reiterated demand for additional dowry when they went to Avanigadda in connection with death of paternal grand mother of the 2nd respondent. A-1 and A-3 were already arrested by the police during investigation. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing F.I.R at its threshold. 2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, A-4 and A-5 may not be arrested during investigation and until ﬁling of charge sheet/ﬁnal report. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 29, 2011 ksh