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 : 1501 of 2010 Between: 1 Smt. M. Satyamma W/o. Narasimha Reddy R/o. 2-2-1075/20/A, Shiva Reddy, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Y. Padmaja W/o. Edla Srinivas R/o. 16-11-16/V/14/A, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Padmasree W/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy R/o. 1-9-50/A, Flat No. F Ratna Mansion, New Dilsukhnagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Madireddy Karuna W/o. Padmanabha Reddy R/o. 2-77/1, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. .....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 quash the C.C. No. 322 of 2005 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Court cum Mahila Court, Hyderabad to the extent of petitioners in the interest of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.SARVOTHAM 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. 1501 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 petitioners are the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier there was stay of all further proceedings and in spite of that charge sheet was fled on account of the transfer of case from one police station to another police station and also on account of want of proper communication. But, there is no material on record in support of the same and it is also not necessary to go into that at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that a letter was written by the de facto complainant to the police saying that certain allegations made in the complaint are incorrect. Though the allegations in the complaint are somewhat omnibus in nature, in view of the fact that the calendar case is of the year 2005, I do not intend to quash the proceedings at this length of time. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 4. However, the presence of the petitioners shall be dispensed with during trial on an appropriate petition being filed on their behalf and on their being properly represented. However, the petitioners shall appear before the trial court on the date of framing of charges; examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., and on the date of pronouncement of the judgment. 5. As the calendar case is of the year 2005, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 23, 2010. *BVS