HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7813 of 2009 Dated : 23.09.2009 Between : Md.Ubedullah @ Shaik Ubedullah & others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7813 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission and as the order being passed herein does not in any way touch upon the rights and interests of the second respondent. The petitioners are facing prosecution for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with the husband of the second respondent as the first accused. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that specific allegations about the involvement of petitioners/A.2 to A.9 in the alleged offences were made and the alleged involvement was as if it was since the commencement of the matrimonial life of the second respondent with the first accused till the ultimate initiation of the criminal proceedings. The truth or otherwise of the allegations are for the trial Court to determine, but not for this Court to go into in a restricted summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though there are no independent witnesses cited in the charge sheet to corroborate the claims of the second respondent, even the criminal petition discloses that the trial in the case has commenced and interim intervention with the same at this stage will not be in the interests of justice. Disputed questions of fact are better left open to be determined by the trial Court on merits. However, the grievance of the petitioners about the petitioners being compelled to attend the Court, at very short intervals, from different places where they reside and their claim that since 1 ½ years the second respondent, examined as P.W.1 in chief, was not attending the Court to submit herself to cross examination appear to be genuine and the case is of the year 2004. The criminal proceedings, which commenced in the year 2004, have to reach to their logical conclusion at the earliest. Hence, it will be appropriate if a direction is given to the trial Court to try and dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law. Therefore, the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, is directed to try and determine on merits in accordance with law C.C.No.423 of 2004 on its file arising out of crime No.238 of 2004 of Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 23rd September, 2009 SUR