IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2011 BETWEEN 1. Harish Yarlagadda 2. Y. Vasumathi 3. Y. Koteswara Rao … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P rep. by the Public Prosecutor through Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, High Court of A.P Hyderabad. 2. Smt. Y. Lavanya, W/o Y. Harish … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioners herein seeking relief of quashing the case in C.C.No.282 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are those punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has at length argued that the allegations in the First Information Report or the charge sheet do not disclose any offences against the petitioners especially the petitioners 2 and 3 who are the parents of the 1st petitioner and therefore should be quashed. 5. It is however difficult to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the allegations in the First Information Report and the charge sheet clearly disclose the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C against all the petitioners. One plea which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the de facto complainant demanded for partition of the property but, since that was not agreed to by the petitioners, she came up with this false case. This plea is more in the nature of a defence and its truthfulness or otherwise has to be decided only on evidence. 5. Thus, what should be noted is that this is not a case where allegations in the charge-sheet or First Information Report even if believed, do not disclose any offence. In these circumstances, it follows that there is no alternative before this Court except to dismiss this petition. 6. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. 7. It is represented that the petitioners 2 and 3 are aged persons. It shall therefore be open for them to make an application before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate to dispense with their presence during the pendency of enquiry or trial and the learned Magistrate may consider that application and pass appropriate orders thereon. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J April 13, 2011 SP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2011 April 13, 2011 SP