HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 2348 of 2009 DATED: 30.12.2011 Between: M. Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P. 2. M. Radhika .. Respondents O R D E R:- Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is A3 in C.C. No. 60 of 1999 on the fie of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, Mahabubnagar District (trial Court). 3. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused in the case is the one punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner is stated to be the elder brother of the de facto complainant’s husband who is A1 in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only general allegations are made against the petitioner in the charge sheet and the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, has nothing to do with the family life of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the case against him should be quashed. 5. It is true that in the charge sheet only general allegations are made. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced copies of statements of the de facto complainant, her father and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statements would show that the petitioner also joined the husband of the de facto complainant and other accused in demanding additional dowry. Thus, it cannot be said that this is a case where even if allegations are believed, no case is made out. One of the contentions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is altogether residing in a different place i.e. Alampur and practicing there. In the charge sheet, it is however stated that all the accused are the residents of Thakkashila village of Alampur Mandal and hence it cannot be concluded here that the petitioner is living at a different place. 6. In the above circumstances and having regard to the allegations made in the charge sheet which show the offence against this petitioner also, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting relief of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner and accordingly that relief is refused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner however pointed out that there is a threat of arrest of the petitioner and some relief should be given to him regarding his arrest as the charge sheet is already filed. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that his instructions are that earlier though Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner, it was subsequently cancelled by the trial Court. The trial Court also in its report dated 19.12.2011 stated that only summons has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner shall now appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing to which the case is posted and thereafter, the trial Court may take necessary bonds from the petitioner if it considers them necessary to secure his appearance before it for every date of hearing. It goes without saying that the trial Court shall take steps to commit the petitioner to custody only in case he is found absconding or otherwise meddling with the witnesses. 9. With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. It shall also be open for the petitioner to make an application for his discharge before the trial Court if he is advised to do so and the trial Court may dispose of the same in accordance with law. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 30.12.2011 bcj