IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, July 19, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 11840 of 2010 Between: Karri Thrinath Reddy and others …Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 11840 of 2010 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. It is reported that notice has been taken out to the second respondent, but she did not turn up. However, it does not make any difference in the present circumstances of the case. 3. The point that arises for determination in this petition is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the criminal case i.e., C.C.No. 245 of 2010 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, Medak District (trial court) in which these petitioners are A-1 to A-3. 4. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant in the above case. Second and third petitioners are parents of the first petitioner. The offences alleged are those punishable under sections 498-A, 506 and 420 IPC and also Ss. 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations in the charge sheet would show that all these three petitioners harassed the second respondent or subjected her to harassment one way or the other and that first petitioner subsequently contracted second marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised various contentions saying that the petitioners are innocent, but all of them fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in this petition. Accordingly the relief for quashing the criminal case is rejected. 5. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are aged 66 years and 60 years now, that they cannot attend the trial court on every date of hearing and therefore their presence should be dispensed with. In the circumstances, having regard to the ages of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 their presence for every date of hearing before the trial court is dispensed and they can be represented by their counsel. The trial court shall have the discretion to order their presence whenever it considers their presence is necessary. However, this relief is not granted to the first petitioner. 6. This petition is accordingly disposed of. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 19, 2011. *BVS