IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 6086 of 2009 Between: 1. U. Venkata Ramana Chary, S/o. Balachary, Flat No.102, Phase-I, 3rd Block, Prajay Nivas, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. 2. U. Aruna, W/o. U. Venkata Ramana Chary, Flat No.102, Phase-I, 3rd Block, Prajay Nivas, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. 3. U. Satish, S/o. U. V. Ramana Chary, Flat No.102, Phase-I, 3rd Block, Prajay Nivas, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Uppaloju Sandhya, W/o. Uppaloju Madan Mohan, R/o. 9-91/B, Ashok Nagar, Boduppal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.877 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.MASTHAN NAIDU CHERUKURI, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6086 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Dhananjay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who entered appearance for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The private complaint filed into Court by the second respondent was referred to the police for investigation and report and after investigation into Crime No.947 of 2008 of Uppal police station, the final report was filed before the court against the petitioners and husband of the second respondent in C.C. No.877 of 2008, on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The statutory investigating agency after independent investigation stated that, the investigation disclosed the possible committal of the offences by the husband of the second respondent and the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are not general and omnibus, but were specific with reference to the particular incidents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of such allegations against the petitioners, it can not be said that the complaint or the final report do not present even ex-facie any scope for attributing the culpable conduct to the petitioners. The petitioners and the husband of the second respondent were residing in the same residence and though the petitioners 1 and 2 are advanced in age, the same can not by itself be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Whether the conduct of the petitioners and the husband of the second respondent is of such a nature as would bring them within the scope of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not is for the trial court to enquire into on the merits of the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it. This Court in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can not go into disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the jurisdiction which is available in the rarest of rare cases can not be invoked, while the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made above. Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners requested that, in view of the age of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the employment of the third petitioner in Chennai, any request for dispensing with their presence during the trial may be directed to be considered favourably. The trial court will undoubtedly take into account the age of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the occupation of the third petitioner into account, if any request for any relief under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 317 thereof or Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is made before it and determine the same positively in accordance with law. The trial court is accordingly requested in this regard. Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-08-2009. Dsh.