THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3038 of 2012
Date:26.06.2014
Between:
J. Beebi Sofiya and another.
. Petitioners.
AND The States By Station House Officer, Gandlapenta Police Station, Gandlapenta Mandal, Ananthapur District, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & the State of Andhra Pradesh and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3038 of 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.326/2011 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that A2 & A3 are impleaded only because of their relationship with the husband of the second respondent and they are no way concerned with the alleged harassment or demand of dowry. He submitted that proceedings against A2 & A3 have to be quashed.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is at the stage of trial and because of this petition, there was no progress.
5. This petition is filed in the year 2012 and no orders are passed when it has come up on 26-03-2012. Again it was listed on 06-06- 2014 and this Court directed the petitioners to take out personal notice to the second respondent and directed to file proof of service within two weeks. When the matter is listed after two weeks i.e., on 20-06-2014, Advocate for petitioners took one week time for filing proof of service. When the matter is listed today, proof of service not filed and it is represented that notice was sent, but acknowledgment was not received. Postal receipt or details as to how the notice was sent are not produced. As seen from the material, police, after examining as many as 8 witnesses including the victim and her mother, filed charge sheet alleging that these two petitioners are also responsible for the harassment caused to the second respondent. At this stage, the correctness of the statements of the witnesses cannot be decided and it has to be decided during trial. All the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners are the defences available to them, which they can agitate before the trial Court. Since the C.C is of the year 2011, I feel by directing the trial Court to expedite the trial, dispose of the same within stipulated time, this petition can be disposed of. Therefore, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the C.C.No.326/2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of this order and the petitioners are at liberty to urge these grounds before the Court below and the trial Court shall consider them without being influenced by dismissal of this petition.
6. With the above direction, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:26.06.2014 mrb