IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, 1st day of July, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 3815 of 2011 Between: Ratnaparke Rajesh and another …Petitioners and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 3815 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners herein are A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No. 15 of 2011 on the file of the court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad. The offence alleged is the one punishable under section 498-A IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the allegations in the charge sheet and pointed out that even if they are believed to be true, they do not make out any offence against the petitioners. He also pointed that some of the allegations relate to the period of 1997 and 1998 and it is also a ground for interfering in the matter. It may however be noted that a perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet if read as a whole would disclose that both the petitioners subjected the de facto complainant to harassment for one reason or the other and the first petitioner who is the husband of the de facto complainant also suspected her fidelity and extended it upto giving FIR. Of course whether the allegations are true or not have to be decided on evidence by the trial court and nothing can be said about the same now. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the second petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner and she has nothing to do with the family of the first petitioner. May be, but the allegations in the charge sheet would show that she also had a role in harassing the de facto complainant. In these circumstances it is not possible for this court to pronounce one way or other about the said allegations and the truthfulness of the same has to be decided on evidence. Hence it follows that this petition cannot be entertained and the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 4. It is seen that the second petitioner is a lady aged about 55 years and the learned counsel for the petitioner says that having regard to her age and being a woman she cannot attend the trial court one very date of hearing. Hence her presence alone on every date of hearing before the trial court is dispensed with and she can be represented by a counsel. It shall be open for the trial court to order her presence whenever it considers necessary. 5. This petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. It goes without saying that the petitioners can apply for discharge before the trial court and as and when such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed off by the trial court without being influenced in any manner by this order. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 1, 2011. *BVS