THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6470 and 8162 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri K. Suresh Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners, Sri M.Animi Reddy, the learned counsel representing Sri M.Achutha Reddy, counsel for the unofficial respondents and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in both these petitions are common. They filed Criminal Petition No.6470 of 2008 for quashing the proceedings against them in C.C.No.667 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. The other petition i.e. Criminal Petition No.8162 of 2008 is filed by them for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.69 of 2008 of IV Town Police Station, Kurnool. In both these cases, the offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The de facto complainant Smt T.Sumithramma in Criminal Petition No.6470 of 2008 is said to be the second wife of the third petitioner Sri T. Prasada Reddy. The de facto complainant Smt M.V.Ratnamma in Crime No.69 of 2008 on the file of IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, is said to be the first wife of the said Sri T.Prasada Reddy. Sri Suresh Reddy has raised various contentions pointing out that the allegations in the charge sheet do not attract the offences of dowry harassment or the offences of woman harassment falling under Section 498-A IPC or dowry harassment falling under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the cases are foisted. It is also argued by him that there is a lot of delay in filing the complaints also. It may be noted that these two questions fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and cannot be decided in this petition. Hence I regret that I am unable to uphold the contention of Sri Suresh Reddy for quashing the cases. It is brought to my notice that in Crime No.69 of 2008, the concerned police have filed charge sheet and it is reported to be numbered as C.C.No.154 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool i.e. in the court in which C.C.No.267 of 2006 is reported to be pending. 4. It may be noted that the first petitioner Sri T.Obi Reddy in Crl.P.No.6470 of 2008 is aged about 74 years and petitioners 2 and 5 i.e. Smt T.Adi Lakshmamma and Smt T.Saritha in Crl.P.No.6470 of 2008 are ladies. Sri Suresh Reddy pleaded that the above three petitioners cannot attend the court regularly for every date of hearing because of their own problems and therefore their presence may be dispensed with in both the cases. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that his request can be considered and accordingly the presence of the above three petitioners for every date of hearing before the trial court in both the cases is dispensed with subject of-course to the discretion of the trial court to summon their presence whenever it considers necessary. 5. These two criminal petitions are accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 9th November, 2011 CVRK