JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.60/2014 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 and the learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent. 3. Though this case is listed for hearing interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. Gist of the complaint are that the deceased got married with accused No.1 on 03.08.2009. At the time of marriage, some dowry has been given, initially deceased was looked after well thereafter, the accused persons started torturing her both physically and mentally and forced to bring more dowry. It is further alleged that she was unable to bear the torture and ill-treatment as a result of the same, she committed suicide in the matrimonial home on 29.08.2013. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.414/2013 and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 that prima facie case has not been made out as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. It is further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 29.08.2013. As on the date, the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 were not residing together either with parents or deceased and her husband. Further it is submitted that petitioner/accused No.4 is working as a staff nurse and she is residing along with her husband at Bengaluru and petitioner/accused No.6 is a practicing Doctor and she is also residing in quarters at K.G. Halli, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that even though the complaint has been registered on 05.09.2011 and 18.10.2011, no allegations have been made as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. Further it is submitted that the additional documents, which has been produced clearly goes to show that accused Nos.4 and 6 were attending the duty and the Attendance Register clearly goes to show that they were not present at the place of alleged incident. Further it is submitted that the additional documents, which has been produced clearly goes to show that accused Nos.4 and 6 were attending the duty and the Attendance Register clearly goes to show that they were not present at the place of alleged incident. It is her further submission that there are allegations, which have been made as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and no allegations have been made as against the present petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. It is further submitted that the material produced in the charge sheet does not constitute any of the offences much les the one under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. On these grounds, she prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP vehemently argued and submitted that there is a prima facie material as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. Even the charge sheet material clearly goes to show that there is ample material as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. He further submitted that earlier accused No.1 has approached this Court for discharge and after taking into consideration of the factual matrix, this Court by order dated 08.08.2016 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the fact that there is no material. In that light, the petition came to be dismissed. Further it is submitted that petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 along with other accused persons have filed a discharge application. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration of the charge sheet material, has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. It is further submitted that accused No.3 present at the place of alleged incident and even in the complaint dated 18.10.2011 clearly goes to show that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 have ill-treated and harassed the deceased. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 to substantiate her contention has produced number of additional records including the Attendance Register and Character Certificate to show that as on the date of alleged incident, petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 were working at Bengaluru. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 to substantiate her contention has produced number of additional records including the Attendance Register and Character Certificate to show that as on the date of alleged incident, petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 were working at Bengaluru. It is not a stage to look into the additional documents as held in catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court that while considering the discharge application or the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the charge sheet material has to be looked into know whether there is prima-facie material or not on perusal of the records if no case made out or if the proceedings of the case is abuse of process of law, then under such circumstance, the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 9. When already the accused persons have filed a discharge application and the said discharge application came to be dismissed by holding that there is a prima facie material and the said order has not been challenged before any Court of law. Even on close reading of the charge sheet material if appears that there is a prima facie material as against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners/accused that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 were not present as on the date of alleged incident and they were working as staff nurse and Doctor at Bengaluru, that is the matter, which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial not at this pre-matured stage. The plea of alibi, which has been contended is a defense available to the accused persons and there is no material to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has filed a false case as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. 10. Taking into consideration of the facts and the charge sheet already the charges have been framed and the trial has to be commenced. Under such circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 have not made out any good grounds to quash the proceedings. 11. Hence, petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously within a period of one year from the receipt copy of the this order. 11. Hence, petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously within a period of one year from the receipt copy of the this order. The above order will not come in the way of disposal of the main case. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records forthwith with further delay. I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed off.