THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4970 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of prosecution against the petitioner-A3 in C.C.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent-State. None appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-A3, along with two others, is accused of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On a complaint given by the 1st respondent-complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.33 of 1999 by the Women police station, Nellore. Subsequently, on a complaint filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., petitioner-A3 was also impleaded as an accused. It is stated that the trial of the case commenced and evidence of P.W.1 was also recorded. At that stage, petitioner-A3 and A2 filed Crl.M.P.No.9314 of 2006 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate, by order, dated 06-01-2007, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-A3 filed Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2007 before this Court and it is stated that the said revision is also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner-A3 filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A3 would contend that the petitioner is aged 80 years and she is the grand mother of A1 and she is residing elsewhere and she has nothing to do with the alleged offence. 5. It is to be noted that in her evidence, P.W.1 has specifically deposed about the involvement of the petitioner-A3 over the alleged demand of additional dowry and she also deposed about the alleged act of harassment, not only by A1 and A2 but also by A3. Even in the complaint and also in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC., the de facto complainant made allegations against the petitioner-A3. The fact that some of the other witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are not reflecting the alleged involvement of the petitioner-A3 in the offence, does not afford a valid ground for quashing the proceedings altogether. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de facto complainant, while giving evidence as P.W.1, has indulged in embellishment by making improvements over her earlier versions. 7. If that is so, it is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 in the light of the other evidence available on record, after completion of recording of the evidence while the trial is in progress, it is neither just nor expedient to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A3 simply because some witnesses have not referred to her name while their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is only just and proper that the trial, which has already commenced, is allowed to be completed so that a logical end can be reached in the proceedings. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A3 at this stage. 8. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. The Interim Stay granted on 10-10-2007 is hereby vacated. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2010 Tsy