JUDGMENT 1. Though respondent No.2-complainant has been issued notice, she is neither represented by counsel nor she is present by herself before this Court. Hence, the matter was taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them by the Hosapete Extension Police Station in Crime No.20/2016 which is now pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete registered as C.C.No.2077/2016 for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 323, 324, 354, 448, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. Petitioner No.1-the brother-in-law, petitioner No.2- sister-in-law and petitioner No.3- husband of respondent No.2 contend that there is a Civil Suit which has been filed by petitioner No.2 and other family members as against respondent No.2, Complainant in O.S.No.98/2011 for partition which came to be decreed. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has filed Regular appeal in R.A.No.27/2014 wherein order of remand was passed. 4. There being certain disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 as regards the properties, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint with the Hosapete Extension Police Station on 15.02.2016 at about 6.30 p.m. stating that the petitioners had assaulted, abused and violated the modesty of respondent No.2 on 13.02.2016 at about 9.45 p.m. The petitioners allege that the said complaint has been filed as a counter blast to the civil litigation. 5. The petitioners contend that the complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioners and they have also been harassed by having to travel from Shimogga to Hosapote on every date of hearing and so far they have attended the Court in Hosapete more than six times and till date, charges have not been framed though charge sheet has been filed. 6. Petitioners further contend that as on the alleged date of commission of offence i.e. 13.02.2016 they were attending to their work in Shivamogga. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are working in Mahatma Gandhi College of Education, Shivamogga. Hence, the Principal of the said college has issued a certificate on 23.11.2017 stating that on 13.02.2016, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 were attending to their work from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Similarly as regards petitioner No.1, attendance information has been produced which indicates that petitioner No.1 reported to work at 21.47 hours on 13.02.2016 and logged out from work at 6.10 a.m. on 14.02.2016. 7. 7. Based on the above documents, the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been framed in the case and it is clear that the petitioners were not present in Hospete on the alleged date. Therefore, on this sole ground, the complaint has to be quashed. 8. Learned HCGP however opposes the said prayer contending that alibi cannot be a sole reason for quashing and further such defence has to be established by the petitioners during the course of trial. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP, it is seen that the complaint was lodged on 15.02.2016 and thereafter the petitioners have been attending to the case at Hospete by traveling from Shivamogga to Hospete on every date of hearing. Though the aspect of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., prima-facie there appears to be some case made out as regards the petitioners not being present at the time of the incident on the date alleged. Though a finding on this would have to be given by the trial Court, at this stage, taking into consideration that petitioners are working people and have to travel to Hospete on every date of hearing, their appearance till recordal of plea is dispensed with. Thereafter, petitioners would follow the directions as made out by the trial Court insofar as their appearance is concerned. 10. With the above directions, the petition as filed is disposed of.