IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1511 of 2010 Between: 1 Mr. Kondeparthi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Tadimalla Village, West Godavari District. 2 Mr. Kondeparthi Govindu, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Tadimalla Village, West Godavari District. 3 Mr. Kondeparthi Ranga Rao @ Rangababu, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Tadimalla Village, West Godavari District. 4 Mr. Nunna Raja Choudary, S/o Rama Chandram, Near Ashok Theatre, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 Mr. Bonagiri Venkatesu, S/o Veerabhadrarao, R/o Jampeta Near Market, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 6 Mr. Tinnathi Rangababu, S/o Anjaneyulu, R/o Janardhanaswamy Colony, Dowleswaram, East Godavari District. 7 Mr. Vakisetti Chandrasekhar, S/o Venkata Ramarao, R/o Chinnaveedhi, Annapurnapet, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Katva Jyothi, W/o Venkanna, R/o D.No.4-57, Tadimalla Village, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto call for the records and quash the charge sheet in PRC.No. 24 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Nidadavole, West Godavari District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 1511 of 2010 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The material on record shows that there is prima facie material against the petitioners herein. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reports that as petitioner Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are students, their presence during the trial may be dispensed with. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the presence of petitioner Nos. 5, 6 and 7 herein shall be dispensed with on an appropriate petition being filed and on their being properly represented. However, they have to be present before the court on the date of framing of charges; examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of pronouncement of judgment. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 23, 2010. *BVS