APHC010602012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 244/2025 Between: Tanneru Suseela and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GOURAVARAPU VENKATA LEELA SUNDARAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.299 of 2017, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kandukuru, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.. 2. Heard Sri G.Venkata Leela Sundaram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioners/A.2 to A.4 are parents and sisters of A.1. As can be seen from the contentions of the complaint there are allegations prima facie to attract the offences under Section 498-A and 3 & R of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the State and would submit that this is not a fit case for quashment that to trial has commenced and examination of P.W.1 is also completed. At this stage, the Court cannot interfere in the matter while the trial is in progress. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the complaint and other material placed on record, as there are prima facie allegations made against the petitioners which attract the offences lodged, and as the police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet, with the Court having taken cognizance, the trial is in progress, and the complainant has 3 been examined before the Court, at this juncture, the quashing of the case against the petitioners cannot be considered. 6. In that view, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically directed by the trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.01.2025 MH 4 169 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.244 of 2025 Dt.09.01.2025 MH 5