HON’BLE SRI JUSICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9947 of 2010 ORDER: The five petitioners herein are A-2 to A-6 in C.C.No.342 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar (trial court). That case has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. They filed this present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the said case against them. 2. The second respondent Smt. Ithapaka Manjula is the de facto complainant. It was on her report given to the police concerned, the matter was investigated into by them and six accused including these petitioners have been charge sheeted for the above offence in the trial court. A-1 in the case is the husband of the de facto complainant. A-2 is the mother and A-2 to A-6 are stated to be sisters of A-1. 3. The charge sheet allegations would show that the marriage of the de facto complainant was solemnized on 28.01.2007 and initially her parents gave dowry running into Rs.3 lakhs and also house hold articles of considerable value on the demand of A-1 and the petitioners and that her life with A-1 was peaceful and happy for about three months and thereafter all the petitioners and A-1 started harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry and on other reasons. It is also stated in the charge sheet that before marrying the de facto complainant, A-1 was already married and that these petitioners and A-1 suppressed that fact and again performed the marriage of A-1 with the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the first petitioner is the mother and other petitioners are sisters of A-1 and they have nothing to do with the family life of A-1 and the de facto complainant and they have been unnecessarily dragged into the matter. He also argued that at least petitioners 2 to 5 who are sisters of A-1 cannot get any share in any additional dowry or property brought by the de facto complainant on the demand of A-1 or on her own and consequently this is a ground for quashing the case against them. The second respondent who is the de facto complainant though served was absent. It is however difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners. 5. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would show the offence of Section 498-A IPC against these petitioners also and they are to the effect that they (petitioners) at the instance of A-1 harassed the de facto complainant not only for dowry but also for other reasons. It may also be noted that this is not a case where petitioners have been living away from the place where the de facto complainant and her husband lived and all them are residents of Hyderabad only. It is specifically alleged in the report of the de facto complainant that on one particular day all the petitioners together threatened the de facto complainant in her family house to commit suicide also by self- immolation with kerosene when her parents questioned them about the first marriage of the de facto complainant’s husband i.e. A-1. This apart the allegations in the charge sheet prima facie show cruelty under both the clauses of Section 498-A IPC. Thus it cannot be said that the charge sheet allegations do not disclose any offence at all. Thus in my opinion this is not a fit case for interference. The various pleas raised by the petitioners’ counsel in the circumstances of the case would all fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and they cannot be entertained in this petition. Accordingly the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 6. Parting with the matter the learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that all the five petitioners are ladies and they have their own problems in attending the court on every date of hearing and consequently on this ground their presence before the trial court for every date of hearing should be dispensed with. It may however be noted that A-1 is the husband and these petitioners are close relatives of A-1 as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the above relief regarding dispensing with the presence of accused can be granted to the first and second petitioners alone who are stated to be aged 71 years and 51 years. Accordingly their presence alone before the trial court for every date of hearing is dispensed with and they can be represented by their counsel. The trial court shall always have the power to order their presence as and when it considers it necessary. The other petitioners may apply before the trial court for the same relief and the same may be considered by it. 7. The Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J 2nd August, 2011 CVRK