IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8323 OF 2012 Between:
Veera suri Srinivas Rao … Petitioners/A1 to A5 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad … Respondents/complainant & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri N.Ravi Prasad for R-2 The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8323 2012 O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in SC.,No. 594 of 2012 on the file of IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, for alleged offences under section 498-A, 313, 506 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners mainly contended that except bald allegations there are no specific allegation against petitioners 3 to 5, who are residing at different places. He further submitted that A-3 is now aged about 80 years and is residing separately at Tirumalgiri in Nalgonda district and there is no prima facie material attracting offences alleged against petitioners.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that Police after due investigation examined as many as eleven witnesses and found that there is role of petitioners 3 to 5 also and at this stage evidence collected by prosecuting agency cannot be weighed and that there are no grounds to quash proceedings.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with charge sheet.
6. Investigating Officer examined as many as eleven witnesses and on the basis of statements of those witnesses held that A-1 to A-5 in the month of May 2009 driven out the complainant from matrimonial home. Besides this allegation, that there are other allegations also against petitioners 3 to 5.
7. As rightly pointed out by advocate for second respondent that this court cannot weigh the evidence in a 482 Cr.P.C. Petition. However, petitioners can urge all these grounds before trial court during trial.
8. Considering the material on record, I am of the view that this criminal petition can be disposed of directing the court below to expedite trial and dispose of it as early as possible preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and petitioners are at liberty to avail legal remedies available under law and urge all these grounds before trial court including discharge petition and the trial court shall consider the same without being influenced by dismissal of this criminal petition.
9. In view of age factor of third petitioner, his presence is dispensed with for each and every adjournment. However, he shall appear as and when trial court feels that his physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose.
10. With the above observation, this criminal petition is dismissed.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
31/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8323 OF 2012 Circulation No.64 Date: 31/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43