HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.11016 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3/A.2 to A.4 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.556 of 2009 of Women Police Station of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The second respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A.1 who is not a petitioner herein. A.2 is brother, A.3 is mother and A.4 is maternal uncle of A.1. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that allegations in the private complaint filed by the second respondent, which now forms part of F.I.R. in this case are not against any of the petitioners herein. Investigation of the case is pending. So, it would be premature to judge about the participation or not of any of the petitioners in the offence relating to harassment of wife for the sake of dowry or additional dowry. Certainly there is role of A.3 in the alleged demand and receipt of dowry amount at the time of marriage. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that investigation of the case cannot be intercepted by this Court to prevent the Investigating Officer to collect detailed facts relating to the offences alleged against the petitioners. It would be sufficient if the petitioners 1 and 3 are given limited protection from their arrest during investigation. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer is directed not to arrest the petitioners 1 and 3 /A.2 and A.4 during investigation. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 29th September, 2010. PNV