HON’BLE SRI JUSICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11708 of 2010 ORDER: The three petitioners herein are A-4, A-5 and A-6 in C.C.No.548 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal (trial court). The said case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the aforesaid case against them. 2. The second respondent Maddela Sharada herein is the de facto complainant in the aforesaid case which is a police case. She is the wife of A-1 Maddela Srinivas. A-2 Maddela Yellaiah and A-3 Maddela Sugunavva are the parents of A-1. Petitioners 2 and 1 herein who are A-5 and A-4 are sister of A-1 and her husband while the 3rd petitioner who is the 6th accused is the elder brother of A-1. It should be noted here that initially the de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the trial court against ten accused including these petitioners alleging the aforesaid offences and the same was referred to concerned police by the said court and on investigation the police filed charge sheet only against six accused deleting the other four accused i.e. A-7 to A-10 shown in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that petitioners 1 and 2 who are the husband and wife are residents of Shanigaram village of Karimnagar District and the third petitioner who is a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is a resident of Gundareddypally village of Karimnagar District and that they have nothing to do with the family life of the de facto complainant and A-1 who stayed for some time at Hanamkonda and subsequently at Hyderabad and that they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant out of spite and they have been charge sheeted without any basis. He also pointed out that the allegations in the charge sheet would show that the grievance of the de facto complainant is against her husband i.e. A-1 and this is a ground for quashing the case against them. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the police investigation into the matter revealed that these petitioners are also responsible for the harassment of the de facto complainant at the hands of A-1 and in fact the police have deleted the other four accused and found the case against these petitioners and therefore they have been charge sheeted. 3. It is true that all these three petitioners are shown as residents of two villages in Karimnagar District. The charge sheet would no doubt show that the marriage of the de facto complainant and A-1 took place on 10.10.2001 at Hanamkonda and they lived for some time in Hanamkonda and later on shifted to Hyderabad. It is also true that the main allegations relating to dowry harassment and cruelty are attributed to A-1. It may however be noted that in the charge sheet it is stated that police investigation into the matter disclosed that these three petitioners also used to visit the de facto complainant and A-1 in their house at Hanamkonda and also at Hyderabad frequently and told the de facto complainant that unless she brings in additional dowry as demanded by A-1 she cannot continue her marital tie with A-1 and that all of them instigated A-1 to harass her in that manner for additional dowry and property. 4. It is true that petitioners may not have any share as of right in the property or money brought by the de facto complainant but what should be noted is that the allegations in the complaint filed in the court and also the allegations in the charge sheet filed by the police would show that these three petitioners also on several occasions visited the matrimonial home of the de facto complainant and specifically told her to meet the demands of A-1 for money and property and also warned her that the marital tie cannot be continued unless she meets the demands of A-1. In the face of these allegations it cannot be said that these petitioners have been charge sheeted without any basis. Thus the principle land down in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand[1] by the Supreme Court which deals with the case of a married sister and brother of the husband of the de facto complainant therein who had nothing to do with the family life of the de facto complainant therein cannot be applied here. 5. The various pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners would show that they pertain to disputed questions of fact which if established may show their innocence and they cannot therefore be gone into in this petition. In other words, all the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners have to be decided on evidence either in the trial or if permissible in an enquiry at the time of framing of charges and this job can be done only by the trial court. 6. In the above circumstances I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 7. It is brought to my notice that the first and third petitioners are employed and the second petitioner is a lady and that they have their own problems in attending the trial court for every date of hearing in the case and therefore their presence before the trial court should be dispensed with. It may be noted that the petitioners 1 and 3 are aged 35 years and 40 years respectively and therefore it cannot be said that they are aged people. Hence it is difficult to grant this relief to them. So far as the second petitioner is concerned she is a lady. In the circumstances the presence of the second petitioner alone before the trial court for every date of hearing is dispensed with and she can be represented by her counsel. The trial court is however at liberty to summon her presence as and when it considers it necessary. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the petitioners to raise all their pleas before the trial court including the plea of discharge and it shall dispose of the same without being influenced in any manner by this order. 8. The Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J 2nd August, 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667