Dismissed

Shaik Vali Pasha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC quashing a proceeding under Section 498A IPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty by husband and family members. The Court held that dispute of fact regarding separation and settlement must be decided during trial. Proceedings could not be quashed. Petitioners presence dispensed with subject to summons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings not quashed; presence of A.2 to A.4 dispensed with subject to summons.

Shaik Vali Pasha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.624 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’), is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.193 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet.

¶5

Basing on a report lodged by 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant, a case in crime No.601 of 2020 of Vastavai police station was registered. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet as against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The allegations, in brief, of the charge sheet are as follows.

¶6

¶7

2^nd respondent married 1^st petitioner/A.1 and they

¶8

were leading marital life in Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad along with parents-in-law. 1^st petitioner was doing real estate business. Her parents-in-law abused her for her infertility. 1^st petitioner used to come in drunken state and harass her mentally and physically. He demanded more money from her parents. 4^th petitioner, who is her adapaduchu, was residing opposite to their house and used to visit her house frequently and abuse her on minor issues, and tried to beat her and shouted to go to house of her parents. When she consulted a Doctor for her infertility, it came to light that there is some defect in 1^st petitioner. Inspite of the same, she bore all the harassment from the petitioners. 1^st petitioner came in a drunken state, beat her and necked out her from the maternal house. On that, she came to house of her parents. A mediation was held in

¶9

¶10

the presence of elders from both the sides and it was decided that the couple shall live separately and 1^st petitioner gave her Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation in January, 2015. In February, 2015, 1^st petitioner mediated with her sister Meera Bee and her husband AlliSaheb stating that he would look after her well, and believing the same, she joined matrimonial home with 1^st petitioner in February, 2015 and 1^st petitioner took back Rs.5.00 lakhs given by him. He looked after her well for some days, but he started coming late in the night and when she questioned, he used to beat her. Due to happening of quarrels frequently, she called her parents to discussions, and on that, 2^nd petitioner (father-in-law) told them to take her back to their house. On that, her parents took her on 23.12.2019 to their house. Thereafter, nobody called visited her nor made any call to her. Hence, the report.

¶11

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶13

that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offence alleged is made out as against the petitioners. It is his submission that at the instance of 2^nd respondent, a Khulanamaissued by the Government Khazi and registered with Telangana State Waqf Board, was obtained and the couple was separated and it amounts to divorce, and 1^st petitioner gave Rs.5.00 lakhs towards settlement, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st respondent contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners, and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact, which have to be decided during the

¶15

¶16

course of trial, and hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶17

Heard. Perused the record.

¶18

The allegations are that 2^nd respondent and 1^st petitioner/A.1 wife and husband. Petitioners 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law and 4^th petitioner is sister of 1^st petitioner. It is alleged that the couples were residing in Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad along with parents-in-law. 1^st petitioner was doing real estate business. There is specific allegation that her parentsin-law abused her for her infertility. There is specific accusation that 1^st petitioner used to come in drunken state and harass her mentally and physically, and demanded more money from her parents. It is also alleged that 4^th petitioner, who is sister of 1^st petitioner/A.1, was residing opposite to their house and used to visit her house frequently and abuse her on

¶19

¶20

minor issues, and tried to beat her and shouted to go to house of her parents. It alleged that though it came to light that there is defect in 1^st petitioner for her infertility, she bore all the harassment from the petitioners. 1^st petitioner came in a drunken state, beat her and necked out her from the maternal house, and on that, she came to house of her parents. It is further alleged that a mediation was held in the presence of elders from both the sides and it was decided that the couple shall live separately, and in January, 2-2015, 1^st petitioner gave her Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation. It is alleged that in February, 2015, 1^st petitioner mediated with her sister Meera Bee and her husband AlliSaheb stating that he would look after her well, and believing the same, she joined matrimonial home with 1^st petitioner in February, 2015 and 1^st petitioner took back Rs.5.00 lakhs given by him. It is further alleged that

¶21

¶22

1^st petitioner looked after her well for some days, but he started coming late in the night and when she questioned, he used to beat her, and thereafter, she was sent to house of her parents on 23.12.2019.

¶23

A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie a specific case is made out as against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A CrPC. Contention of the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent that a Khulanama issued by the Government Khazi and registered with Telangana State Waqf Board, was obtained and the couple was separated and it amounts to divorce, and 1^st petitioner gave Rs.5.00 lakhs towards settlement, is a disputed question of fact, which has to be decided during the course of trial. This Court, in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, cannot conduct a roving into the disputed questions of fact. Therefore,

¶24

¶25

there are no grounds to quash the impugned

¶26

proceedings.

¶27

However, considering the facts and

¶28

circumstances of the case, the age of petitioners 2 and 3 and the submissions of the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent, presence of petitioners 2 to 4 /A.2 to A.4 is dispensed with, before the trial Court, except on those occasions when the learned Magistrate feels that their presence is necessary.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶31

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶32

09.08.2023 DRK

¶33

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 624 OF 2023

¶36

09.08.2023

¶37

DRK

Shaik Vali Pasha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Vali Pasha 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

Smt M Estheru Rani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeruva Naga Muni Konda Reddy (A-2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhavanam Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Narra Peda Kotaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppolu Kameswari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Arji Anil Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh