THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.985 of 2012 Dated: 16.07.2014 Between:
Dayakar Reddy Malgari, S/o Malgari Janga Reddy and others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., through WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad and another … Respondents The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.985 of 2012 ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.471 of 2011 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent lived in U.S.A. for 11 years and they have some matrimonial disputes and for that all the family members, i.e., petitioners 2 to 4 were also implicated. He further submitted that because of this case, petitioners 2 to 4, particularly 4th petitioner, who is a student is suffering a lot and though they are attending to the Court, trial is not taken up as 2nd respondent is not in India. It is further contended that entire complaint would reveal that alleged harassment was only in USA and not in India and therefore, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the incidents that happened in USA.
4. I have perused the material papers and the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners. Charge-sheet is filed not only for the offence under Section 498-A IPC but also for the offence under Sections 406 IPC and 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to charge-sheet investigation revealed that at the time of marriage on demand A1 and his family members took dowry of 50 tulas gold and open plot admeasuring 1200 square yards as dowry, and there was criminal breach of trust. The correctness of these aspects cannot be decided in a 482 petition, when particularly police after due investigation found prima facie material against the petitioners. Admittedly, petitioners have not filed any discharge petition before the Court below.
According to Cr.P.C., petitioners have right to seek for discharge with the same grounds now urged herein.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that trial Court is not taking up trial and the prosecution is not producing the witnesses, I feel by directing the Court below to dispose of the case within stipulated time and also giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedies available under law including discharge petition before the trial Court, this petition can be disposed of.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.471 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by dispensing with presence of petitioners for each and every adjournment. However, the petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when the trial Court feels that their physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose. The petitioners are at liberty to avail all legal remedies including discharge petition and urge these grounds before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider them without being influenced by any of the observations made in this petition.
7. Criminal Petition is disposed of with above observations.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
S. RAVI KUMAR, J 16th July, 2014. ssp