Allowed

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC20 Jan 2011CRLP/4663/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed further proceedings against petitioners (respondents 6 and 7) in a Domestic Violence Complaint. Held that absence of specific allegations and incrimination made continuing proceedings an abuse of process. Petitioner's petition allowed; interim stay vacated.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings against petitioners A-6 and A-7 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2009 quashed; interim stay vacated.

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, Vs State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4663 OF 2009

¶5

Between:K.Chandrasekhar Rao and another

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

A n d

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶11

CRL.P.No.4663 OF 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitoners/A-6 and A-7 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2009, on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam.

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the second respondent-complainant. Perused the record.

¶15

3. The second respondent herein filed D.V.C.No.7 of 2009 against her husband, mother-in-law and her

¶16

husband’s brothers, their wives and her husband’s sisters and her husband. The petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents 6 and 7 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2009. The first petitioner is one of the elder brothers of the complainant’s husband. Second petitioner is the wife of first petitioner.

¶17

4. A perusal of the complaint given by the second respondent would disclose that the entire thrust of the allegations is directed against her husband, mother-in-law and other members of the family, but not against the petitioners herein. There is absolutely no allegation whatsoever, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, contained in the complaint. Admittedly, the petitioners are residing elsewhere and away from the matrimonial home of the second respondent. The incidents alleged in the complaint are said to have taken place in the house of the complainant’s husband’s another brother viz., Visveshwara Prasad, but not in the house of the petitioners. As the complaint does not disclose any incriminating material against the petitioners so as to proceed against them and there being no specific allegation contained against the petitioners, it is considered that continuance of proceedings in D.V.C.No.7 of 2009 insofar as petitioners are concerned, is only an abuse of process of law.

¶18

5. In the circumstances, further proceedings against the petitoners/A-6 and A-7 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2009, on the file of the

¶19

I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam, are held not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings against other

¶20

respondents in the said D.V.C shall go on.

¶21

6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.

¶22

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20^th January, 2011 Lrkm.

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, v. State of A.P.

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

Karna Ramamohana rao Vs Boddu Ratnamba

Pambala Erraiah Vs Vemisetti Raghavender

Kandirelli Srihari Rao Vs Kandirelli Kesavardhan Rao

Smt. Tanakanti Lakshmidevi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Gousepeer, Vs The State of A.P.

Mokilla Damodar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh