THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P. No.6874/2007 Dt,6-8-2010 1. Tippana Pullamma and others ..Petitioners V. 1. The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building, Hyderabad, through Station House Officer, Vontimitta Police Station, and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6874/2007 ORAL ORDER This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in CC No.112/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout initiated against the petitioners who are arrayed as A-1 to A-4 respectively in the said case. A-1 is the mother of the deceased, Venkata Subba Reddy, who is the husband of the defacto-complainant (second respondent herein). A-2 to A-4 are the daughter of A-1 and sisters of the deceased, Venkata Subba Reddy. The charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vontimitta Police Station, would disclose that marriage of the defacto-complainant with the deceased was performed on 26-10- 1991; that they were blessed with two daughters and one son; that the husband of the defacto-complainant committed suicide; that the accused neglected the defacto-complainant and her children and she has been treated as maid servant; that when she brought the matter to L.W.2 who mediated through L.Ws.4 and 5 and asked the accused to give her share in the property, for which they threatened her and beat her with hands and unable to bear the harassment, she filed the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the defacto-complainant filed the complaint, on which police filed charge sheet, as a counter blast to the private complaint filed by the first petitionerr/A-1 against the defacto-complainant and her relatives under Sections 306 r/w 34 IPC. The charge-sheet would clearly disclose that A-2 is a resident of Chennur and A-4 is the resident of Proddatur town. Therefore, A-2 and A-4 beating the defacto-complainant does not arise, since they are residing with their husbands at different places. Further, there is no allegation levelled against A-2 and A- 4. Therefore, continuation of proceedings initiated against the petitioners 2 and 4/A-2 and A-4 is nothing but abuse of process of law and they are liable to be quashed. The allegation against the petitioner No.1/A-1 is that she has been treating the defecto-complainant as maid servant and harassing her physically and mentally when she demanded a share in the property of her husband, which amounts to cruelty as in explanation-a to Sec. 498-A IPC. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner No.1/A-1. In so far as petitioner No.3/A-3 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she is a mentally retarded person, and to substantiate his contention, he places a Xerox copy of Pension Pass Book issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Vontimitta under the aegis Project Director, District Rural Development Authority, Kadapa District, evidencing that she is receiving pension under the Physically Handicapped Pension Scheme with an identity No.27416. Whether petitioner No.3/A-3 is a mentally retarded person or not is a question to be decided by the trial court when she is appearing before it. In view of the same, this court directs the petitioner No.3/A-3 to make an application before the trial court to discharge her from the proceedings, and on making such application, the trial court after examining her, shall pass appropriate orders. The criminal petition, in so far as petitioners 2 and 4/A-2 and A-4, is accordingly allowed and proceedings initiated against them in CC No.112/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout are quashed. The criminal petition, in so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 3/A-1 and A-3, is dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.6-8-2010 kmr