Allowed

Kanakala Syamsundara Rao, v. Kantubhukta at Kanakala Sandhya Rani

Andhra Pradesh HC6 May 2024CRLP/605/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the quashment of domestic violence proceedings filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws. The court held that the complainant suppressed her adultery, rendering the allegations baseless and constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, were quashed.

Kanakala Syamsundara Rao, Vs Kantubhukta at… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 60fi OF 2021

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kanakala Syamsundara Rao, s/o Simhachalam aged about 32 years,

¶6

resident of Door No-39-9-156/2,Tenneti nagar,Madha/adhara,Visakhapatnam.

¶7

Kanakala Simhachalam, s/o late Sanyasinaidu, aged^about62 years, residing at 2-63, Ramalayam Street, Arikathota village. Rambhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶8

Kanakala Laxmi, w/o Simhachalam, aged about 57 years, residing at 2-

¶9

63, Ramalayam Street, Arikathota village, Rambhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶10

Bevara Kishore, s/o Appalaraju, aged about 26 years, residing Door No39-9-156/2, Tenneti nagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused{S)

¶12

¶13

Kantubhukta @ Kanakala Sandhya Rani, w/o Kanakala Syamasundara Rao, 23 years, now residing at Bugata Street, Salur, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶14

Kanakala Chanvi, D/o Syamasundararao, aged about³ years, being

¶15

minor represented by her mother guardian-Pt petitioner-rest do.

¶16

Kanakala Shivansh, D/o Syamasundararao, aged about 11 months years, being minor represented by her mother guardian-1^st petitionerrest do.

¶17

The State of AP, Rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Amaravathi.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to QUASH the proceedings in D.V.C.No-7/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District.

¶20

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in D.V.C.No-7/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class , Salur, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G U R C PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.4 and None Appeared by person or Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

[3396]

¶25

APHC010040492021

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 605/2021

¶30

Between:

¶31

Kanakala Syamsundara R'ao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

¶32

Kantubhukta Kanakala Sandhya Rani ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) and Others

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶34

1.G U RC PRASAD

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶36

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The instant petition-under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Respondents seeking quashment of proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the^file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram^District. 2. Petitioner No.1 herein is the husband and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are

¶40

the in-laws of Respondent No.1 herein and Petitioner No.4 herein is the nephew of Petitioner No.1.

¶41

' for short 'Cr.P.C'

¶42

The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows;

¶43

a. Marriage of Petitioner No.1 with Respondent No.1^{wasperformedon} 21.05.2014. At the time of marriage, as per the demands^{ofthePetitioners} herein, the mother of Respondent No.1 paid dowry of^{Rs. 12,00,000/-,sare} saman worth Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.80,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam. Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses to the Petitioner^Nos., 1 to 3 herein and also presented a bracelet weighing 3 Vz tulas,^{threegoldringsweighing} 25 grams to Petitioner No.1 herein and 5 tulas of gold^{toRespondentNo.1} herein,

¶44

b. The marriage was consummated and during wedlock^{PetitionerNo.1} and Respondent No.1 herein were blessed with two children^{i.e..Respondents} Nos.2 and 3 herein. Few days thereafter. Petitioner No.1 herein started harassing the Respondent No.1 herein both physically^and mentally by demanding to bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her mother to^invest in a business. With the said amount, they started a firm under the^{nameandstyleofStar} Engineering and Logistic Services at Visakhapatnam^{andwithintwoyears} they started another firm under the name and style of M/s.S.S.C.Marine Services, Visakhapatnam.

¶45

c. Respondent No.1 joined as a pahndr along with one^{PoosarlaVasaviin} the said firms. Even at time of her pregnancy also.^{PetitionerNo.1hereinused} to harass Respondent No.1 herein both physically and^{mentally.Sheborethe} torture with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of Petitioner No.1, but in vain. After the birth of Respondent No.2 herein.

¶46

¶47

Petitioner No.1 again demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was also paid by the mother of Respondent No.1.

¶48

d. With the profits in business, Respondent No.1 purchased a site at Murali Nagar under a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.2016 for which mother of Respondent No.1 also contributed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and the said site was registered in the names of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 herein.

¶49

e. From 2017, Petitioner Nos., 2 to 4 also started harassing her by instigation of the Petitioner No.1. They all used to demand to transfer the « interest and rights of Respondent No.1 in the business and the site purchased by her for which, she did not agree. They used to threaten Respondent No.1 with dire consequences and that they will cause disappearance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. f. Finally, on their demand. Respondent No.1 permitted^{PetitionerNo.4to} look after the business and she left to Arikathota Village and used to reside with Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein till 28.12.2019. Unbearable with the harassment of Petitioners herein. Respondent No.1 came to her mother’s house at Salur. While so, on 04.01.2020, Petitioners 1,2 and 4 herein came to Respondent No.1 and obtained her signatures on stamp papers and blank papers forcibly and created an agreement for divorce,

¶50

g. In the meanwhile, on 30.12.2019 Petitioner No.1 herein forced her to sign on papers before an Advocate. The efforts made by the elders to settle

¶51

¶52

the matter proved futile. Petitioner No.1 herein also had taken away all the gold ornaments of Respondent No.1. ’ h. On 26.01.2020, Petitioner No.1 herein came to Respondent No.1, had taken away Respondent No.3 herein and all the Petitioners used to demand her to agree for their terms, else, they would put^an end to the life of Respondent No.3 herein. i. Petitioner No.1 is now looking after the business and getting income not less than Rs. 1,00,000 /- per month. Petitioners 1 and 3 have Ac. 18.00 cents of landed property and a terraced house at Arikathota Village and the income derived from the landed property is not less than Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. As such she filed a case in D.V.C.No.7 of ^020 against^{thePetitionersherein.}

¶53

Grounds Sought for Quashment

¶54

Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case. Petitioners 1 to 4 herein filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. Respondent No.1 herein was leading adulterous life with one Khaleel as on the date of filing of the DVC. Therefore, the provisions of Domestic violence are not applicable to the facts of the present case on the ground that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 are not residing^{underoneroof,} b. The voluntary statements given by Respondent No.1^{andsaidKhaleel} as to the raid against them in the V.N.Lake Palace Hotel, Vizianagaram and as to the arrangement made by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent^No.1 to take one child by each of them and the arrangement to file a mutual divorce by

¶55

¶56

them, were suppressed in DVC case. Due to suppression^{ofthesematerial} facts, the DVC is not maintainable.

¶57

c. The scope of DVC is very limited as to whether there is urgent requirement of the wife as to her maintenance or residence because of domestic violence. Since Respondent No.1 is not residing with Petitioner No.1, the question of domestic violence does not arise.

¶58

d. A wife leading adulterous life is not entitled to^{themaintenanceand} thereby Respondent No.1 herein cannot maintain the DVC case against the Petitioners.

¶59

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

¶60

Heard Sri G.U.R.C.Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.4. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶61

Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.1 has been leading an adulterous life with one Khaleel^{andshehasnotbeen} living with Petitioner No.1 herein, as such, the question^{ofdomesticviolence} does not arise. It is also stated that Petitioner No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.231 of 2020 on the file of Family Court against Respondent^{No.1hereinandShaik} Khaleel seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and the same is pending. It is also pointed out that by suppressing the actual facts of the illegal intimacy with said Khaleel, Respondent No.1 herein filed the present DVC. It is also pointed out that the allegations leveled in the DVC^{arebaselessandomnibus.}

¶62

Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners^herein is an Hence, prayed to quash the DVC against the abuse of process of law. Petitioners.

¶63

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^would submit that Petitioners herein subjected Respondent No.1 to domestic^{violenceandthere} It is also stated that are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners. there are no tenable grounds to quash the case against Petitioners.^Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶64

Point for Determination

¶65

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel^{representingboth} the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is;

¶66

Whether there are any justifiable ’grounds for quashment^of Petitioners/Respondents in proceedings against the D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District?

¶67

Determination by the Court

¶68

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that^{theCodeenvisages} not limited or affected so as to that inherent powers of the High Court are make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect^{toanyorderunderthe} Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any^{Courtor,otherwise(iii)to} secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section^{482jurisdictionisnot} functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its and substantial justice, depending on the facts and powers to do real must be invoked for compelling circumstances of the case. These powers

¶69

¶70

reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

¶71

¶72

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, Respondent No.1 has been leading adulterous life with one Shaik Khaleel, who is running a medical shop and when they both were in a room of V.Z.M.Sunlake Palace Hotel on 09.09.2019, Police and Petitioner No.1 caught them and they both admitted about their illicit relationship. In support of the said contention, the Petitioners filed the copy of^the letter addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Salur admitting her relationship with said Khaleel. She also stated that she does not want to continue her relation with her husband i.e.. Petitioner No.1 herein^{andshedoesnotwantto} file any cases against the Petitioner No.1. Respondent^{No.1alsoexecutedan} agreement on 04.01.2020, wherein, she clearly mentioned that she and Khaleel were caught by the Police in a hotel room and^{inviewofthefutureof} Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Petitioner No.1 herein had not given any complaint. It is further stated that she admitted about her guilt and on assurance that she will not repeat the same. Petitioner^{No.1allowedherinto} the matrimonial fold. Thereafter, as she felt guilty,^{shewasunabletolivewith} her husband and as such, both of them wanted to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent. But, subsequently, as Respondent No.1 did not come forward to file divorce petition by mutual consent.^{PetitionerNo.1} herein filed F.C.O.P.No.231 of 2020 against Respondent No.1 herein^{andsaidKhaleelon} the ground of adultery on 19.02.2020. By suppressing all these facts

¶73

¶74

Respondent No.1 filed the present DVC with all false and untenable allegations against the Petitioners herein.

¶75

Perusal of the record discloses that except the^omnibus and bald allegations, there are no specific allegations against^{thePetitioners.} It shows that, Respondent No.1 with a view to harass the Petitioners^{herein,filedthe} present DVC by suppressing the actual facts. Therefore,^{thisCourtisofthe} view that, there are no tenable grounds to continue^{theproceedingsagainst} the Petitioners and the same are liable to be quashed.

¶76

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Respondents in D.V.C.No.7 of^{2020onthefileofthe} Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur,^Vizianagaram District, are

¶77

hereby quashed.

¶78

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶79

¶80

SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram^District.

¶85

One CC to SRI. G U R C PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

Two CCs to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of^Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati[OUT]

¶87

Three C.D.Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/05/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.605 of 2021

5?'
8^
■/O
m
..I. 0 7 CCT 232'}
Current Seciion ^ /
•k

¶94

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Kanakala Syamsundara Rao, v. Kantubhukta at Kanakala Sandhya Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanakala Syamsundara Rao, v. Kantubhukta at Kanakala Sandhya Rani

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

Konakalla Sai Aruna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Konakalla Sai Aruna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Minna Rao, Vs M. Mariyappan

N Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinni Harika Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Suryadevara Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh