Dismissed

Pusala Nirmala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2022CRLP/9408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Sections 494, 506 IPC. It held that jurisdiction regarding last residence is a question of fact for the Magistrate, not for the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and thus dismissed the plea.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the complaint dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition stood closed.

Pusala Nirmala Vs the State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9408 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 in C.C.No.46 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi for offences under Sections 494, 506 r/w 109 and 34 of I.P.C.

¶4

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking to quash the said complaint. The primary ground raised by the petitioners is that the alleged 2^nd marriage is said to have taken place in Guntur while the complaint was filed before the Police Station at Darsi and the trial is being taken up by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Darsi and the same is not permissible as no part of the offence had taken place in Darsi.

¶5

Sri Chennakesavulu K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also submit that the alleged offence under Section 506 is alleged to have taken place in Darsi. However, there is no connection between the alleged offence under Section 494 and the alleged offence under Section 506 to bring the case within the ambit of Section 179 of Cr.P.C.

¶6

¶7

and hence the case, to the extent of the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. requires to be quashed.

¶8

Learned Public Prosecutor would point out the Section 182 of Cr.P.C. provides that an offence under Section 494 of I.P.C can be tried by a Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the couple last resided together.

¶9

Learned Public Prosecutor draws the attention of this Court to the statement of the defacto-complainant that he is a resident of Darsi and that the 1^st petitioner, who is said to be the wife of the defacto-complainant , had resided with him after marriage at Darsi.

¶10

Sri Chennakesavulu K, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the language of the statement does not lend itself to such a meaning and in any event the couple had last resided together in Dachepalli of Guntur District and hence the provisions of Section 182 of Cr.P.C. would not give jurisdiction to the Court at Darsi.

¶11

The import of the statement made by the defactocomplainant and the question of whether the couple last resided together at Darsi or Dachepalli of Guntur District are questions of fact which can be gone into only by the

¶12

¶13

Magistrate in the course of the trial and it would not be appropriate for this Court to intervene at this stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal

¶16

Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

12.12.2022

NPR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9408 of 2022

¶23

12.12.2022

¶24

NPR

Pusala Nirmala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pusala Nirmala 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

V.Ramana Charyulu Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.and Anr.

Orsu Kasaiah at Orchu Pedda Kasaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C Sambamurthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Seeram Santosh Vs the State of Ap

Garnepudi Krupa Sudhakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gade Sriharibabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh