ORDER : For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names. Sithika Begum (deceased) was married to Mohamed Meeran (A3) some time in the year of 2001 and their marriage ran into rough weather because her husband was addicted to liquor. It is alleged by the prosecution that Sithika Begum (deceased) was ill-treated by Saluka Beevi (A1), mother in law and Ali Khan (A2), nephew of A1 and Mohamed Meeran (A3) would always take sides with his mother and not support the deceased. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused forcibly evicted Sithika Begum (deceased) from the portion in which she was living and, therefore, Sithika Begum (deceased) complained to the Local Jammath and the Jammathdars conducted a Panchayat on 30.01.2009 and handed over the keys to Sithika Begum (deceased) for her to live in her portion. Sithika Begum (deceased) went to her portion in the evening on 31.01.2009 and at that time, it is alleged that Saluka Beevi(A1) came inside her portion and set her on fire and locked the door from outside, resulting in Sithika Begum suffering from serious burn injuries. Sithika Begum was taken to the Hospital, wherein a dying declaration has been recorded from her by the Magistrate, in which, she has implicated Saluka Beevi clearly to the effect that Saluka Beevi has set her on fire and bolted the door from outside. Sithika Begum succumbed to the injuries thereafter. On the complaint lodged by Mohamed Ayyadurai, the brother of the deceased Sithika Begum, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 30 of 2009 on 01.02.2009 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and thereafter, altered the case to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after completing the investigation, has filed a charge sheet and the case is now pending trial in S.C.No.15 of 2014 before the Sessions Mahila Court, Madurai, for offences under Sections 498A, 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code, challenging which, Ali Khan (A2) and Mohamed Meeran(A3) are before this Court. 2. Heard Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent. 3. Mr. 2. Heard Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent. 3. Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no material as against Ali Khan (A-2) in the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated on the short ground that he is a relative of Saluka Beevi (A1) and further that he was a police man. The learned counsel took this Court through the entire case records and submitted that even in the dying declaration given by the deceased Sithika Begum, she has implicated only Saluka Beevi (A1) and even the presence of A2 and A3 has not been mentioned by her. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) refuted the said contentions. 5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 6. On a thorough reading of the First Information Report, dying declaration and the statement of witnesses, this Court does not find any material to show that Ali Khan (A2) was anywhere near the place of occurrence on 31.01.2009 when the incident took place. Therefore, the question of he abetting the offence committed by A1 under Clause I and III of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused had conspired to kill Sithika Begum and, therefore, the second clause of 107 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code also cannot be invoked. Of course, it is not necessary, for the offence of abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, there should be physical presence of the accessory near the principal accused. However, in this case, the only allegation against Ali Khan (A2) is that he used to ill-treat Sithika Begum (deceased) by joining hands with other accused. It is nobody's case that he had done any of the acts mentioned in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the offence that was allegedly committed by Saluka Beevi (A1). Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, a charge under Section 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained as against Ali Khan (A2). Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, a charge under Section 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained as against Ali Khan (A2). However, there are prima facie materials to show that he had committed acts of cruelty against the deceased Sithika Begum and, therefore, in the course of same transaction, he can be charged for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As regards Mohamed Meeran (A3), it is reported that he died in the year 2013 and, therefore, charge against him abates. 7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the charge against Ali Khan (A2) for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code alone is quashed and the charge against him for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is sustained. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the accused co-operate with the Trial Court by engaging a counsel and cross-examining the witnesses on the day they are examined in chief. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the first petitioner-Ali Khan before the Trial Court may be dispensed with, since he is working as a Police Constable. 9. Accepting the said submission, the Trial Court may show indulgence in dispensing with the personal appearance of Ali Khan (A2) on his counsel filing an application under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and undertaking that the identity of Ali Khan (A2) will not be disputed and that the prosecution witnesses will be cross-examined in his absence on the day they are examined in chief.