HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9386 of 2013 Date: 23-6-2014 Between Narayana Goud and 2 others … Petitioners/ Accused 2 to 4 and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent Smt. B.Madhavi … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9386 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in C.C.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the case as against them. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. Petitioners 1 to 3, who are accused 2 to 4, are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that concrete allegations are made by the 2nd respondent against the 1st accused, who is her husband and that the allegations against petitioners 1 to 3 are mere omnibus allegations. She further contended that the 3rd petitioner does not even stay with the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-
de facto complainant has taken me through the complaint, which was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.157 of 2012 on the file of Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone, Hyderabad. Series of allegations were made against accused 2 to 4 in paras 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 of the complaint. One of the important allegations is that the 2nd respondent was necked out of the house by the petitioners on Deepavali day in 2009. The 2nd respondent further alleged that on 20-8-2012 at 06.00 p.m., the four accused came to the house of the 2nd respondent, quarreled with the 2nd respondent and her parents and created nuisance on the road. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioners joined hands with the 1st accused in demanding the 2nd respondent for additional dowry. Thus, the offences under Section 498-A, IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are prima facie made out against the petitioners. I therefore consider that this is not a fit case where the calendar case can be quashed as against the petitioners.
4. The 1st petitioner is 60 years old, the 2nd petitioner is 55 years old and the 3rd petitioner is 35 years old. Petitioners 2 and 3 are women. In view of the age of petitioners 1 and 2 and in view of the sex of petitioners 2 and 3, I consider that it may be appropriate to request the Trial Court not to insist upon the regular presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court and to direct the petitioners to appear before the Court as and when their presence is really necessary.
5. Consequently, this criminal petition is disposed of permitting the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad to proceed with the trial of the case. The learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, however, is requested not to insist upon the regular presence of the petitioners-accused 2 to 4 on every date of hearing of the case. The learned Magistrate, however, is at liberty to direct the petitioners to be present on any day where their presence is necessary for the disposal of the case as the learned Magistrate considers in his discretion. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
23rd June, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9386 of 2013 23rd June, 2014. (Ak)