Allowed

Polumati VinodA-1 v. Polumati Surekha

Telangana HC12 Aug 2011CRLP/3663/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner after hearing the complainant, who stated that the matter was compromised with elders. The court held that continuing prosecution despite the settlement would serve no useful purpose, cause hardship, and amount to abuse of the judicial process, leading to the allowance of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

All criminal proceedings against the accused are quashed and the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

Polumati VinodA-1 Vs Polumati Surekha — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRL.P. NO.3663 and 3669 of 2011

¶3

DATE: 12.08.2011

¶4

CRL.P. NO.3663 of 2011 BETWEEN: Polumati Vinod Petitioner/accused And Polumatti Surekha and another .. Respondents/complainant CRL.P. NO. 3669 of 2011 BETWEEN: Polumati Vinod and others Petitioner/accused And Polumatti Surekha and another .. Respondents/complainant

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶6

CRL.P. NO.3663 and 3669 of 2011

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The Criminal Petition No.3663 of 2011 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Section 342, 323 and 307 IPC.

¶9

2. The Criminal Petition No.3669 of 2011 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.612 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada Krishna District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶11

4. The complainant and accused are present. Smt P.Surekha, complainant stated that on the intervention of the elders, she compromised the matter with the accused and now she is living with her husband amicably and she is no longer interested to prosecute the case. Since the offence against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is non compoundable, it is not possible for

¶12

the parties to compound the matter before the trial Court. Further, in view of the compromise, if the criminal cases are allowed to be continued before the trial Court, no useful purpose will be served and there is no possibility for the prosecution to secure a conviction since the complainant and witnesses will not support the prosecution case. Thus, if the case is kept pending, it will causes much hardship and inconvenience to the parties and it also amounts to abuse of process of Court.

¶13

5. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the compromise between the parties, all the proceedings above against the accused are hereby quashed.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

¶15

___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶16

Date: 12.08.2011 kvrm

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶18

CRL.P. NO.3663 and 3669 of 2011

¶19

DATE: 12.08.2011

Polumati VinodA-1 v. Polumati Surekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polumati VinodA-1 v. Polumati Surekha

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

Begari Manaiah, A1 Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Katike Gangavva Vs Ummenthala Bhairaiah (Died)

Bhagyalakshmipanigrahi Vs Balupanigrahi

Smt. T.Satya Sruthi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kommineni Satish Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dongala , Gottam Ileshwari Vs Boda Yella Reddy