Dondeti Malreddy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 941 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.692 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/defacto complainant to quash the order

dt.21.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1921 of 2022 in

C.C.No.378 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby

the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by

respondents 2 & 3 herein/A2 & A3 for splitting the aforesaid

CC for separation of trial of A2 & A3 from out of A1 & A4.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto

complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The present Criminal Petition is filed by the defacto

complainant who had filed a complaint for the offences under

section 498(A), 420, 406, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code

r/w.120-B and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.,

against the son-in-law who is Accused No.1. The respondents

2 and 3 herein who are A2 and A3, are parents-in-law and

Accused No.4 is the daughter.

4. The case was filed by the Police and registered as

C.C.No.378 of 2016 and pending before the XIII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

5. On 21.11.2022, the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate has split up the case against A2 and A3 by

observing at para-7 of the impugned order which reads as

follows;

"The petitioners/A2 and A3 herein are aged above 60 years. Since from filing charge sheet, A1, A4 NBWs are pending and the matter is pertaining to 2016 year and coming for furnishing copies since from 2016 onwards and from 03.01.2017 onwards on each adjournment the petitioner/A2, A3 regularly appearing before this Court and the respondent No.1 till date unexecuted the NBWs against A1 and A4. Therefore, it is just and necessary to split up the case against the petitioners who are regularly appearing before Court even though they are aged persons."

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto

complainant would submit that the Magistrate had

committed error in splitting up the case against respondents

2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3. The Magistrate ought to have

followed the procedure of proclamation under Sections 82

and 83 of the Cr.P.C. and without following the said

procedure, the case was split up and being tried against these

respondents 2 and 3.

7. He relied on the Judgment of High Court of Delhi in

Jitender Narottam Das Mehrotra v. State and others1

wherein the High Court while dealing with a dishonor of

cheque, found that the trial Court cannot split the trial in

respect of persons who are appearing before the Court. The

Delhi High Court held that splitting up of trial against some

of the accused and simultaneously continuing with the

proceedings of procuring the presence of remaining accused

is neither legally permissible nor congenial to the trial as it

has to be intermittently subjected to fits and starts and the

possibility of de novo trial, if even one of the accused appears

at the fag end cannot be ruled out.

2003 (71) DRJ 43

8. In the present case, the case was registered on the basis

of the complaint for the offences punishable under Section

498 (A), 420, 406, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code

r/w.120-B and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The respondents herein are the parents-in-law who are aged

about 66 and 68 years. They have been going around the

Court since 2015 and the learned Magistrate having found

that the petitioners who are aged and have been regularly

appearing before the Court and since the Non-bailable

warrants remained unexecuted against A1 and A4, split up

the case.

9. Admittedly, the respondents 2 and 3 herein/A2 & A3

have been going around since 2015. The procedure adopted

by the learned Magistrate in splitting up the case and trying

the case against respondents 2 and 3 herein who are parents-

in-law cannot be found fault with, at this juncture. The

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that section 317(2) of Cr.P.C. has no application.

10. When the co-accused do not appear in a case such as

the present case over a period of nearly 8 years, the

respondents/accused cannot be made to go around the

courts indefinitely. The accused have a right of speedy trial

and only for the reason of other accused not appearing, the

trial cannot go on indefinitely. I do not find any infirmity in

the order passed by the learned Magistrate in splitting up the

case against Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are respondents 2 and

3 herein.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.02.2023 tk

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.692 of 2023 Dt.24.02.2023

tk