Allowed

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah, (A-7) v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2011CRLP/4682/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that criminal proceedings against petitioners charged under IPC 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed due to vague and baseless allegations without any clear nexus showing how petitioners stood to gain. Petitioners may be tried under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if evidence warrants.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.476 of 2007 were quashed. Trial court's jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preserved for future evidence.

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah, (A-7) Vs State of A.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4682 of 2009 Dated 19-12-2011

¶2

Between:

¶3

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah and others.

¶4

…Petitioners.

¶5

And:

¶6

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

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4682 of 2009

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

2. It is seen that notice has been served on

¶12

the 2^nd respondent-Vadlamudi Krishna Kumari who is the defacto complainant but she is absent. She did not also engage any counsel.

¶13

3. Petitioners herein are A.7 to A.13 in C.C.No.476 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur. They are all together 13 accused in the case. The offences alleged against all of them are those punishable under Sections 498 (A) I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Section 506 I.P.C.

¶14

4. It is seen that according to the Charge Sheet, A.7 and A.8 who are husband and wife are paternal uncle and paternal aunt of the husband of defacto complainant while A.9 to A.13 are other relatives of the husband of the defacto complainant.

¶15

5. A perusal of F.I.R. and also allegations in the Charge Sheet would show that the defacto complainant’s

¶16

husband developed some intimacy with the defacto complainant’s sister and demanded the money from the defacto complainant and it is alleged that his other close relatives who are stated to be A.2 to A.6 helped him in that activity.

¶17

6. So far as these petitioners are concerned, a vague allegation is made against them both in F.I.R. and Charge Sheet that they also supported the defacto complainant’s husband and his mother in harassing her for money and other valuables. The allegations against these petitioners are very vague and it is not made clear in the Charge Sheet as to how these petitioners who have nothing to do with the family of the defacto complainant stand to gain from creating a rift between defacto complainant and her husband or if she gets any property or cash from her parents.

¶18

7. In these circumstances and having regard to the principle laid down in PREETI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF

¶19

JHARKHAND (^[1] ) , I am of the opinion that the proceedings against these petitioners in the aforesaid criminal case should be quashed.

¶20

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open for the trial Court to proceed against these petitioners under Section 3 1 9 Cr.P.C. basing upon the evidence let in if that is warranted.

¶21

_____________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶22

Dated 19-12-2011. Dvs

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4682 of 2009 Dated 19-12-2011

¶25

[1] (2010) 7 SCC 667

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah, (A-7) v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadlamudi Sankaraiah, (A-7) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peddi Srinivas Rao Vs The State of A.P

Smt.G.Nagabhushanamma, Vs The State of A.P.

Kuruba Bille Osurappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rpe. by its Public Prosecutor

Venigalla Sudhakara Rao, Vs Venigalla Siva Parvathi , Parvathi

Ch.Srisaila Babu,(A-1) Vs The Senior Intelligence Officer

Gvml Prasada Rao, Vs The State of A.P.