HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4294 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3/A5, A4 and A6 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in crime No. 228 of 2008 of Vikarabad Police Station. On a report given by the 2nd respondent, the police registered the crime against A-1 to A6. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent. A-4 is sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. A6 is maternal grand mother of A-1. A1 to A3 are not figuring as parties in this petition. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place on 20- 5-2001. 2. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the accused received dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, 20 Tolas of gold, 2 kgs. of silver, clothes and other utensils worth Rs. 50,000/- apart from marriage expenses of Rs.1,25,000/-. It is further alleged that demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and motor cycle, A1 to A6 were harassing the 2nd respondent and they ultimately drove away the 2nd respondent from their house. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that since the year 2005, A1 and the 2nd respondent have been living separately and that even though A1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ultimately he did not pursue the same. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that for eight years the 2nd respondent had no grievance against family of the accused and that after eight years of her marriage, for the first time, she gave the report to the police and that it is only a counter blast for the report given by A-1 against the 2nd respondent’s people. It is a matter which has to be investigated into. As per allegations in the report, not only Section 498-A IPC but also other Penal Sections in the Dowry Prohibition Act also are attracted. It is contended that A4 and A5 are residents of Patancheru Mandal of Medak District and A-6 is resident of another house than that of A1 to A3. Details as to harassment have to be elicited by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and while recording statements of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, this court at this stage does not intend to intercept the investigation of this case at its threshold. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioners 2 and 3 / A4 and A6 are ladies, the Investigating Officer is directed not to arrest them during investigation and until filing of charge sheet. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 22-10-2010 Mjl/*