THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6811 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, invoking the provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4037 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. Heard Ms.J.Sravanthi Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Udit Narayan, learned counsel representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is the elder brother of accused No.1 and petitioner No.2/accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of accused No.1 and the entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1. She further submitted that petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry, hence the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act are not attracted against the petitioners. Hence, the complaint filed against the petitioners is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He further submitted that the question as to whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not has to be revealed during the course of trial and there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners restricted the prayer requesting the Court to dispense with presence of petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.4037 of 2020, before the trial Court.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not opposed the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the above submissions made by the respective parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the presence of petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that the petitioners are being represented by their counsel on every date of hearing. However, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the trial Court, whenever their physical presence is required. In case of non-appearance of petitioners on specific date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

8. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 12.08.2025 Note: Issue CC in three days b/o vsl/pav