THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11571 OF 2010 DATED:30-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.483 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner-A4 along with others is accused of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. A case was registered on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein. After investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.1631 of 2005. A1 is the husband of the complainant; A2 and A3 are the parents of A1; A4 is the sister of A1 and A5 is said to be the second wife of A1. It is not disputed that C.C.No.1631 of 2005 ended in acquittal of A1, A2, A3 and A5. 5. A perusal of the judgment, dated 18-12-2009, in C.C.No.1631 of 2005 would disclose that the complainant- P.W.1 turned completely hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case at all and the other witnesses were not produced before the Court and as such, their evidence was closed. The trial Court therefore held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case against the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-A4 could not attend the Court and participate in the trial at that time as she was staying away at Bhimavaram. 7. There is no justification for the petitioner to stay away from the trial in C.C.No.1631 of 2005 when the other accused were regularly attending the Court. However, in view of the fact that the complainant herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all and there was no other evidence produced by the prosecution and therefore the case against the other accused ended in acquittal, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a regular trial against the petitioner- A4 in split up case C.C.No.483 of 2009. Continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.483 of 2009 would only result in wastage of precious time of the Court. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A4 in C.C.No.483 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangarddy District, and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2010 Tsy