Amanaganit, Balaiah v. The State Of Ap., Rep.Byits Public Prosecutor,

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.6 4 1 4 of 2 0 1 1 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed for quash of the proceedings against petitioners, who are A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6, in CC.No.168 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge. Macherla. The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. None appears for the second respondent.

3.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are baseless. The counsel contends that the petitioners are residing separately from A1 and defacto complainant and that they do not have anything to do with the affairs of the family of A1 and the complainant.

4.

A perusal of the complaint would show that the complainant alleged that A5 and A6 often visited Nandyala and that all the accused planned for the second marriage of A1 and that they beat her indiscriminately on 12.02.2010. Hence, when there are specific allegations with reference to specific dates, this Court is of the opinion that it is a matter to be enquired into by due trial In the light of the above, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________ T. RAJANI, J August 14, 2018/ DSK