ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 276 of 2019 of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, particularly against the Accused Nos. 2 to 5.

2. This Court has heard Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. The petitioners before this Court are the father, mother, brother and the brother's wife (sister-in-law) of the 1st accused.

4. A private complaint was filed against the accused persons alleging offences under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 506, 59 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Later, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the matter was referred to the police for further investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar essentially argued on two grounds that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and that there are no specific instances against the present set of petitioners, which would warrant taking of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007 (3) ALT(Crl.) 385 (SC) : (2007) 12 SCC 641 and argued that the delay affords an opportunity to the complainant to improve and embellish the case and sometimes even make up fabrications. Relying on the paragraph-9 of the said judgment learned counsel submits that in cases of delay the Court should view the allegation with suspicion. If the delay is not properly explained, learned counsel for the petitioners argued it is fatal to the case. According to him the private complaint is only filed in March-2019, whereas the alleged offences commenced in the year 2007 itself. He also points out that when a private complaint is filed legal advice is given and embellishment of the complaint cannot also be ruled out. Therefore, learned counsel also argues that this Court should quash the proceedings at this stage itself. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Preeti Gupta and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2010 (3) ALT(Crl.) 99 (SC) : (2010) 7 SCC 667, learned counsel would argue that the allegations in the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, particularly where the family members are roped in without any clear details being given of their involvement in the alleged complaint. Basing on these two grounds, learned counsel argues that there are no specific allegations as far as the present set of petitioners are concerned and that the delay is also fatal.

6. In reply to this learned Public Prosecutor points out that there is no delay at all in this case. According to him there were a series of offences commencing from 2017 and ending with the case said to have been registered on 31.01.2019. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that upto this period of time the complainant did not approach the police, thereafter she has given an explanation for lodging of the complaint, in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the private complaint, that is filed. Learned Public Prosecutor therefore submits that the delay in this case is not very long for it to be presumed that there are embellishments or fabrications. Apart from that he also points out that a reading of the complaint would show that there are verifiable details and issues which can be decided during the course of the investigation. He points out various dates that are mentioned about the incidents and about the financial transactions also. Apart from that he points out that these issues about the financial transactions are also capable of being determined during the course of investigation. The eviction or the vacating of the matrimonial house in March 2008 is also a verifiable fact. Learned Public Prosecutor a