Dismissed

Koneti Viswanatham, v. Chenji Nagamma , Revathi

Telangana HC23 Jul 2010CRLP/5010/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners accused of offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court rejected the call, holding that a subsequent divorce did nullify offences committed prior to the marriage dissolution and that harassment allegations warranted trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings was dismissed.

Koneti Viswanatham, Vs Chenji Nagamma , Revathi — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5010 OF 2008

¶3

DATE:23.07.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Koneti Viswanatham and 4 others

¶6

…… Petitioners.

¶7

And:

¶8

Chenji Nagamma @ Revathi and another

¶9

…..Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5010 OF 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.69 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Koduru, Kadapa District. A-1 is husband of the 1strespondent/defacto-comploainant. A-2 to A-4 are sisters of A-1. A-5 is son of A-4.

¶13

2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-1 filed H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the 1^st respondent and as a counter blast for the same, the 1^st respondent gave report to the police thereafter. It is further contended that as on today decree of divorce was granted between A-1 and the 1^st respondent and

¶14

therefore, the 1^st respondent cannot maintain the criminal case against the petitioners as she ceased to be wife of A-1. Whether the divorce is subsequent to or prior to launching of criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, it cannot have any bearing on the offence committed prior to divorce. By virtue of the divorce, all the previous alleged criminal activity cannot come to a naught.

¶15

3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that main grievance of the 1^st respondent is with regard to sale of property by the husband and that it cannot be basis for prosecution in this case. Apart from her grievance for sale of the property at the instance of his sisters, the 1^st respondent categorically alleged that A-1 was demanding for additional dowry from her on the ground that he is an employed person, and that A- 1 was harassing her and attributing illegal intimacy with others. It is further alleged that A-2 to A-5 were also harassing the 1^st respondent and threatened her with pouring of kerosene on her and setting fire to her in case she did not leave their house. All the facts cumulatively constitute the offences and more particularly relating to Sections 498-A and 506 IPC against all the petitioners. Truth or falsity of the said allegations is a matter of decision by the trial court after trial then both the parties will be leading evidence in support of their contentions. I do not find any reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court.

¶16

4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶17

__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.

¶18

Date:23.07.2010. Gk.

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5010 OF 2008

¶21

Date:23.07.2010

¶22

Gk.

Koneti Viswanatham, v. Chenji Nagamma , Revathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneti Viswanatham, v. Chenji Nagamma , Revathi

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. Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Yathi Raju, Vs State of A.P.

Vallepu Dasu Vs Naidu Mallaiah

V.Viswamanatha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. K.v.Lakshmi Kameswari

Raja Rajeshwara Fist Farmers Mutually Aided Co-operative Vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue