THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3786 of 2008 Date: 08.04.2011 Between: Gali Bibi and 4 others … Petitioners/ A.2 to A.6 AND The State of A.P., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3786 of 2008 ORDER: This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) by the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and four others for quashing proceedings against them in Crime No.31 of 2008 on the file of the IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Indeed, charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C.C.No.511 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. There are as many as six accused. The offences levelled against them are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (‘D.P. Act’ for short) in connection with the Crime No.31 of 2008 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. A.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant by name Smt. Razia Begum. The de facto complainant was given marriage to the first accused on 24.04.2005. There is an allegation that the first accused received dowry at the time of the marriage. It is further alleged that A.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, and other persons made further demand for additional dowry and harassed the de facto complainant and that A.2 to A.6, who are the mother of A.1 and other close relatives of A.1, joined hands with A.1 in harassing the de facto complainant. 2. This petition is laid by A.2 to A.6 seeking for quashing of the proceedings against them. The learned counsel for A.2 to A.6 contended that the complaint as well as the charge sheet against A.2 to A.6 merely contains omnibus and sweeping allegations without specific and concrete overt acts against any of them. I gather that the main contention of the accused is that A.2 who is the senior citizen is dragged to Court on account of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and A.1. 3. In view of the fact that the dispute is a matrimonial dispute where controversies like whether the first accused validly divorced the de facto complainant and whether A.2 to A.6 connived and abutted A.1 in the commission of the offences are questions of fact, I consider it appropriate that it would be just and proper for the trial Court to decide the issues according to law after recording evidence. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of the petition without going into the merits of the case leaving it open for both sides to raise their respective defences before the trial Court. 4. At the same time, as already pointed out, the main apprehension of the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 is that A.2, a senior citizen is being subjected to the ordeal of facing criminal trial. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to relax the rigour of the criminal law so far as A.2 is concerned taking into consideration her age and her relationship with A.1 who is the main culprit. I, consequently, would consider it appropriate to permit A.2 not to appear before the trial Court but to be represented by a counsel except on those occasions when the trial Judge requires her presence only for a reasonable cause. 5. For the above mentioned reasons, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. The petitioners and the second respondent may appear before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Anakapalli in connection with the C.C.No.511 of 2008 and work out their respective defences before the trial Court. A.2, who is the first petitioner herein, is permitted not to appear before the trial Court but to be represented by a counsel by way of special vakalat under Section 205 Cr.P.C. However, A.2 shall appear before the trial Court at the time of the framing of the charges, if any, and at the time of the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., if any, and on such other times as the learned trial Judge requires the presence of A.2. I make it clear that the trial Judge can summon the presence of A.2 by giving special reasons in writing as to why the presence of A.2 is required before the trial Court on any given date. 6. With the above observation and direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 08.04.2011 Isn