Dismissed

K.Leelavathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/4787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash an order denying interim custody to the mother of a victim in a case involving exploitation of a trafficked woman. The court held that the Magistrate's order requiring State rehabilitation was well-considered and not perverse, finding no merit for interference under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.4787 of 2022 is dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

K.Leelavathi Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4787 OF 2022

K.Leelavathi

…. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor. …. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.T.Ramakoteswara Rao Counsel for the respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.577 of 2021 in Crime No.243 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Santhamaguluru Police Station dated 12.11.2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

¶10

The petitioner, being mother of a victim in a case of Exploitation of Trafficked Woman filed the above said petition seeking her interim custody. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter and formulating the point for determination rejected the petition by a reasoned Order dated 12.11.2021.

¶11

Heard Mr.T.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the Order under challenge is not sustainable as the Court below failed to

¶13

¶14

exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a proper perspective. He submits that the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in not allowing the petition filed by the mother of the victim by taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned Magistrate went wrong in coming to conclusion that handing over of custody of the victim to the petitioner/ her mother would affect the victim’s future even before the Trial is taken up. He submits that in any event, the Order under challenge is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the Order passed by the learned Magistrate contains cogent reasons and well within the discretion of the Court. He submits that there are no merits in the Criminal Petition warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, seeks dismissal of the matter.

¶16

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As seen from the impugned order dated 12.11.2021, the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the DPO’s report, had come to a conclusion that the economical and social condition of the victim are such that it requires some rehabilitation and medical assistance and also care to the three children of the victim. The learned Magistrate had also observed that the victim involved in a gruesome crime in eliminating her husband and further opined to the effect that the environment in which she is living, may drive her to the path of crime. The learned Magistrate further directed the District

¶17

¶18

Collector, Kurnool District and Project Director of Women and Child Welfare Department to take necessary measures for ensuring rehabilitation, care and medical support to the victim and also custody of children of victim from their grandmother/petitioner and provide them education, medical aid and rehabilitation at the place where the victim is lodged for rehabilitation or in such manner, as the authorities deems fit with prior consultation of the Court.

¶19

The Order of the learned Magistrate is well considered and in the interest of the victim as well as her children in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Magistrate as the same does not suffer from material irregularity or perversity.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

¶22

stand closed.

¶23

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶24

Date: 18.07.2022 BLV

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4787 OF 2022

¶28

Date: 18.07.2022 BLV

K.Leelavathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Leelavathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B C Prameela Vs Sri N Bharath Gupta

Vemula Parvathi, Vs Kunkalaguntla Satyanarayana (Died)

J Subba Reddy Vs Y v Narasimham

Goluhuti Brnksys Rama Reddy Vs Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy

Sri Kusumanchi Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mokkapati Venkata Santosh Sai Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh