THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3459 OF 2011 Dated: 28.07.2011 Between: Ponugoti Hanumantha Rao …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3459 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in C.C.No.165 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vemulawada, Karimnagar (trial Court). The substance of the charge against this petitioner and the other two accused who are accused 2 and 3 in the case and who are his sons is that all of them by deceiving the de facto complainant made her to sign on certain papers and withdrew the amounts from her bank account. This amount is said to have been paid by the Government Authorities for the land of the de facto complainant’s husband which was acquired by them. The de facto complainant’s husband and accused No.1 are brothers. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the allegations in charge sheet would show that accused 2 and 3 went to the bank and withdrew the amount and that this petitioner has nothing to do with that transaction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for de facto complainant argued that the charge sheet contain allegations against this petitioner also showing that he has colluded with accused 2 and 3 and obtained her signatures. I have gone through the charge sheet and it shows that the above contention of the learned counsel for de facto complainant cannot be brushed aside. The learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to various averments in the charge sheet and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the bank official also to show various improbabilities which may prove the innocence of the petitioner. All these aspects pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. Hence, the relief of quashing the case is rejected. 4. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner is aged 63 years and he cannot attend the Court on every date of hearing as he has got some health problems. In the circumstances, the presence of the petitioner on every date of hearing before the trial Court is dispensed with and he can be represented by his counsel. However it is open for the trial Court to order his presence as and when it considers necessary. 5. This petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 28th July, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3459 OF 2011 DATE: 28.07.2011