CRLP/2348/2009 of M.Suresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P on 30 December 2011

O R D E R:-

Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The petitioner is A3 in C.C. No. 60 of 1999 on the fie of theJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, Mahabubnagar District(trial Court).Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, Mahabubnagar District(trial Court).

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused inthe case is the one punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Thepetitioner is stated to be the elder brother of the de facto complainant’shusband who is A1 in the case. the case is the one punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Thepetitioner is stated to be the elder brother of the de facto complainant’shusband who is A1 in the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only generalallegations are made against the petitioner in the charge sheet and thepetitioner, being a practicing advocate, has nothing to do with thefamily life of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the case againsthim should be quashed. allegations are made against the petitioner in the charge sheet and thepetitioner, being a practicing advocate, has nothing to do with thefamily life of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the case againsthim should be quashed.

5. It is true that in the charge sheet only general allegations aremade. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner producedmade. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced copies of statements of the de facto complainant, her father and otherwitnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statementswould show that the petitioner also joined the husband of the de factocomplainant and other accused in demanding additional dowry. Thus,it cannot be said that this is a case where even if allegations arebelieved, no case is made out. One of the contentions which havebeen raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner isaltogether residing in a different place i.e. Alampur and practicingthere. In the charge sheet, it is however stated that all the accused arethe residents of Thakkashila village of Alampur Mandal and hence itcannot be concluded here that the petitioner is living at a differentplace.

6. In the above circumstances and having regard to theallegations made in the charge sheet which show the offence againstthis petitioner also, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case forgranting relief of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner andaccordingly that relief is refused.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner however pointed out thatthere is a threat of arrest of the petitioner and some relief should begiven to him regarding his arrest as the charge sheet is already filed.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that hisinstructions are that earlier though Non-Bailable Warrant was issuedinstructions 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 onlysummons has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner shallnow appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing to whichthe case is posted and thereafter, the trial Court may take necessarybonds from the petitioner if it considers them necessary to secure hisappearance before it for every date of hearing. It goes without sayingthat the trial Court shall take steps to commit the petitioner to custodyonly in case he is found absconding or otherwise meddling with thewitnesses.

9. With this direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. It shallalso be open for the petitioner to make an application for his dischargebefore the trial Court if he is advised to do so and the trial Court maydispose of the same in accordance with law.

__________________N. RAVISHANKAR, J30.12.2011

bcj