THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1980 OF 2009 Date: 14.12.2011 Between: V.Chittamma and others …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through S.H.O., P.S. III Town P.S., Kurnool and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1980 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Kasinageswara Rao, the learned counsel for petitioners, Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.162 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool (trial court). The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are admittedly the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the unmarried sisters of the de facto complainant’s husband. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that a perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also in the charge sheet would show that even if the allegations are taken on their face value, no offences are made out against these petitioners and therefore the above case should be quashed. This is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. It may be noted that both petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are unmarried women are said to be working as Teachers and are in service. Therefore prima facie they must not have any problem either financial or otherwise in leading their lives. Nothing is mentioned in the complaint or in the charge sheet as to how petitioner Nos.2 and 3 stand to gain by creating a rift between the de facto complainant and her husband and also any property that may be brought by her. In these circumstances having regard to the principles laid down in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jarkhand[1] I am of the opinion that the above case against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 should be quashed. 5. So far as petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are concerned, allegations have been made against them and they cannot be said to be baseless. However the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations brought against petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have to be decided by the trial court as they involve disputed questions of fact. 6. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned is allowed and the proceedings against them in the above case are quashed and insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are concerned it is dismissed. Even with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 it is made clear that the trial court in exercise of its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. can proceed against them also, if in the course of trial, evidence is forthcoming to show that they should also be prosecuted. 7. At the end of the arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners brought to my notice that petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are aged people and they cannot attend the trial court for every date of hearing. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, she is a lady and having regard to her age, her presence before the trial court for every date of hearing is dispensed with and she can be represented by a counsel but subject of course to the power of the trial court to summon her presence as and when it considers it necessary. This relief is not granted to petitioner No.2. 8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is partly allowed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 14th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1980 OF 2009 DATE: 14.12.2011 [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667