ORDER
Vaman Rao, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has been filed for a direction to the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Vijayawada to separate the cases of the petitioners from the other absconding accused.
3. The petitioner No. 1 herein is Accused No. 2 in C.C.No. 357 of 1998 and he is said to be 62 years (old) and the 2nd petitioner is Accused No. 3 in that C.C. and is said to be 59 years old and these petitioners are parents of A1 and A4 in that case. The petitioners and two other accused are facing charge under Section 498-A of IPC. While the petitioners herein appeared before the Court, the other two accused are said to be absconding and NBWs are said to be pending against them. These petitioners have been attending the Court for the last one year without any progress in the trial in view of non-appearance of the other two accused.
4. It is stated that under the above circumstances, the petitioners herein filed a petition before the learned Magistrate in Cri. M.P. No. 7737 of 1998 for separating their case so that the trial against them can be concluded expeditiously without waiting for other two accused whose appearance is uncertain. It appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate that this request was negatived mainly on the ground that the police have not filed any report expressing their inability to execute NBWs or to separate the cases against the absconding accused Al and A4.
5. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy is that for the Magistrate to take action for separating the case of the petitioners, an application to that effect by the police is not necessary. Attention is drawn to the Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which contemplates that where if the Magistrate is satisfied that if the presence of other accused cannot be secured within a reasonable time, having due regard to the right of such of the accused as have appeared, it shall separate their case and enquire and proceed with the trial against them without delay.
6. In this case, the charge-sheet itself shows that Al and A4 have been presently residing in the United States of America. Obviously, the chances of execution of NBWs issued against them do not appear to be bright. It is an uncertain factor as to when Al and A4 might happen to go over to India. Even if they come here for short stay, there is no guarantee that NBWs may be executed against them during the short span of their stay.
7. Considering these circumstances and considering the age of the petitioners herein and considering the fact that the case has been pending against them for more than an year, it is eminently an appropriate case where the case against the petitioners herein ought to have been separated in accordance with Section 82 of Cr. P.C. and Rule 20 of Criminal Rules of Practice. It may be repeated that an application by the Police in this regard is not necessary for taking action by the Magistrate under Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. There is sufficient material on record to show that NBWs pending against the accused are not likely to be executed in the near future.
8. Considering these circumstances, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed to separate the case in terms of Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice in respect of the petitioners herein and proceed with the trial against them by separating the case from the absconding accused.
9. This petition is ordered accordingly.