IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4391 of 2009 DATE:26.08.2010 Between: K.Surender Reddy and others …… Petitioners And: State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4391 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C in Crime No.228/2008 of Vikarabad Police Station. A- 1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. The 2nd respondent and A-1 have got two sons. It is stated that the younger son is with the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that at the time of marriage on 20.05.2001, the petitioners were given dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, 20 tolas of gold, 2 Kgs of silver, lanchanams of Rs.50,000/- . There is no dispute that both the couple are residing separately since some time prior to giving of this report to the police. It is alleged that the petitioners 1 to 3 and other family members harassed and ill-treated the 2nd respondent when she lived in their house for the sake of additional dowry and that after separation, when she went to her parents’ house, the accused went to her parents’ house also and harassed her by demand of dowry and that subsequently when rented house was taken in Vikarabad and she has been residing there, the accused did not leave her and came to Vikarabad also and harassed her on the ground of payment of additional dowry. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that both the couple are residing separately since the year 2005 and that A-1 filed O.P. No.132 of 2007 in the Family Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights against the 2nd respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that subsequently the said petition was withdrawn as address of the 2nd respondent could not be located. It is further contended that 2nd respondent is actually residing at Lungarhouse of Hyderabad and is working as teacher in Kaveri High School in that locality and that giving a false address at Vikarabad, this false case was foisted in Vikarabad Police Station, because perhaps some person known to her is working in Vikarabad police station. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no specific instances of harassment are pleaded muchless with dates and other details. In a case under Section 498-A I.P.C, one cannot expect a single instance or two instances or fixed number of instances of harassment in order to narrate them with reference to dates and periods. The alleged harassment in an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C is a continuous process being undergone by the wife in the hands of husband and other family members of the husband. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving dates and specific instances of harassment in a case of this nature. In the case on hand, there are specific allegations of harassment with reference to three places viz., place of accused, place of the defacto-complainant’s mother and also at Vikarabad. The allegations in the report do disclose necessary ingredients for registration of the case for offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C against A-1 to A-3. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R in this case. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 KSH