HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.4377 of 2013 Date: 10.07.2014 Between:
Sunkireddy Bakkireddy Surekha, W/o. K. Rajananda Reddy .. Petitioners/ A.2 to A.4 AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.4377 of 2013 ORDER:
The petitioners are A.2 to A.4 in C.C.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. They allegedly committed offences under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They seek for the quashment of C.C.No.42 f 2013. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents of the offences levelled against them.
2. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. A.1 is her husband. A.4 is the mother of A.1. A.2 is the sister of A.1. A.3 is the husband of A.2. The second respondent lodged a compliant against all the accused making allegations that the petitioners and her husband treated her cruelly within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and also demanded for additional dowry exposing themselves for punishment under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was necked out from the matrimonial home by the second respondent in 2008 and that the first accused filed a petition for divorce on 21.11.2011. He pointed out that the complaint in the present case was filed by the second respondent on 24.12.2011 as a counter blast. He further submitted that the first and second petitioners/A.2 & A.3 were not residing with the second respondent and A.1. He referred to the partition suit laid by the second respondent in O.S.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the fourth accused was arrayed as the first defendant and the second accused was arrayed as defendant No.3. The address of the first defendant was shown as different from the address of the fourth accused. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A.2 & A.3 did not have even resides with A.1 & A.4 and the question of their harassing the second respondent does not arise.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are questions of fact which can be considered at the time of trial of the case and not in a quash petition. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to face trial and set up their defence before the trial Court.
5. The first petitioner/A.2 is a lady. She is described to be a State Government Employee.
The second petitioner/A.3 is said to be working as a Teacher. The third petitioner is 62 years old lady. In view of their ages and calling, I consider it appropriate to exempt the petitioners from appearing the trial Court except when it is necessary.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to proceed with the trial of C.C.No.42 of 2013. The learned trial Judge, however, shall not insist upon the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court except when it is necessary of the petitioners to appear for the just disposal of the case. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date: 10.07.2014 Isn