HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2376 OF 2010 Date: 15.04.2010 Between: Katragadda Naga Malleswara Rao and others. …..Petitioners And: The State of A.P rep. by Its through Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2376 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.69 of 2010 of Pet Basherbagh Police Station, Cyberabad for quashing of F.I.R in that crime. They and another are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only omnibus allegations were made against the petitioners without mentioning any dates. Details of the allegations will come during statements of witnesses and victim to be recorded by the police during investigation. It is further contended that since 1½ years the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant is residing separately from A-1 and that the 2nd respondent filed private complaint which was referred to the police for investigation, only after A-1 filed divorce petition. It is further stated that exparte divorce was obtained by A-1 and that petition filed by the 2nd respondent for setting aside exparte decree of divorce, is pending. Subsequent divorce between the parties even if it is final, cannot absolve criminal acts if any committed by the accused against the defacto-complainant. 3) In so far as A-5 and A-6 are concerned, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that they are only maternal grand father of A-1 and paternal uncle of A-1 and that they cannot be termed as family members. Section 498-A I.P.C speaks about relations of the husband and not family members of the husband. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent gave detailed part played by each of the accused as against her. Apart from offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C, the defacto-complainant alleges offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that A-5 and A-6 should not have been impleaded in this case. At this stage I see no legal impediment to the police for investigating the offences. There are no merits in this petition. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 15, 2009 KSH