HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4343 of 2009 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4347 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in both the criminal petitions, who are A-2 to A5 in CC No.240 of 2009 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. A-1, who is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is not figured as petitioner herein. Their marriage took place on 08-05-2000. 2. It is stated that since marriage, 2nd respondent and A-1 were residing at Nalgonda, whereas A2 to A4 are residing at Pedda Suraram in Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District and that since the year 2005, the 2nd respondent and A-1 have been living separately from each other. As can be seen from FIR and charge sheet, the dispute between the parties is with regard to registration of a plot of land by the 2nd respondent in favour of Padma, who is stated to be sister of A-1. The petitioner contended that there is no sister to A-1 by name Padma. The 2nd respondent’s counsel states that Padma is first cousin of A-1. 3. It is alleged that A-1 on the instigation of A2 to A5 has been harassing the defacto complainant for additional dowry and also for registering the plot in favour of Padma. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A4 is elder brother of A-1. Though A5 was impleaded in the criminal case, the charge sheet does not disclose identity of A5 with reference to relationship with A-1 to A-3. According to the petitioners’ counsel, A-5 is only a well wisher of both the parties and a mediator and that Section 498-A IPC does not permit accusation under that provision as against A-5, who is not at all related to A-1. Neither in FIR nor in any part of the record, relationship of A5 with A-1 is noted. FIR given by the 2nd respondent does not at all speak about any harassment by A-5 towards the 2nd respondent. 4. In so far as A4 is concerned, even as per contents of FIR, A4 is a victim of harassment by A2 and A3, and A4 attempted to commit suicide by taking poison because of harassment of A2 and A3. A4 is always residing in another house in the same village. Therefore, there is no possibility of A4 joining hands with A1 to A3 in harassing the 2nd respondent. But A2 and A3 being parents of A1, this Court at this stage cannot rule out their instigation and it is a matter of fact, which has to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. 5. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4343 of 2009: In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are directed to surrender before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, within two weeks from today, in which event, they shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for Rs.5,000/- together with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the same Magistrate. 6. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4347 of 2009 In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC No.240 of 2009 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A4 and A5 are concerned. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 08-10-2010 Mjl/*