Dismissed

Yeddulla Desingh , Jaya Singh, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Mar 2011CRLP/5887/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in a dowry harassment case (CC No.208 of 2008) against him as the 6th accused, alleging lack of specific charges. The High Court held that specific allegations existed against all accused, requiring a trial on facts, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is dismissed.

Yeddulla Desingh , Jaya Singh, Vs The State of A.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5887 OF 2008

¶3

Date: 25^th March, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Yeddulla Desingh @ Jaya Singh

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5887 OF 2008

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.208 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa so far as the petitioner who is arrayed as the 6^th accused in that case is concerned.

¶15

Whereas the petitioner is the 6^th accused and the respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶17

The accused No.1 in the case married the de facto complainant on 21.5.2007. At the time of marriage, dowry and articles were given to the 1^st accused. They lived happily for some time i.e. for two months and later, at the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 6 in the case, blood relatives of the 1^st accused, started harassing the de facto complainant. Then and then the accused Nos.2 to 6 used to visit the house of accused No.1 and de facto complainant and also used to harass the de facto complainant along with the accused No.1 and all the accused used to demand the de facto complainant to get additional dowry and on one occasion, the accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant at the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 6.

¶18

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner/6^th accused that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/6^th accused to warrant any trial in the Calender Case and hence, the proceedings are to be quashed against him.

¶19

It is mainly to be examined as to whether any material is there to

¶20

proceed against the petitioner/6^th accused in the Calender Case.

¶21

Having gone through the record, it appears to me that there are specific allegations/instances of harassment of all the accused including the petitioner/6^th accused against the de facto complainant, which makes obligatory to try the case. There is clearly a question of fact to be decided and there is no basis to allow the petition basing upon the record now available. There are no merits in the petition.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

_____________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 25^th March, 2011 Tjmr

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5887 OF 2008

¶26

DATE: 25^th March, 2011

¶27

TJMR

Yeddulla Desingh , Jaya Singh, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeddulla Desingh , Jaya Singh, v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathi Tata Reddy, Vs Sathi Aruna

Varanasi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of A.P.

G.Padmaja Rani Vs Sri P.Gopala Krishna Reddy

Kolla Veera Narayana, Vs The Union of India

M.Srinivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House

Sri Puram Trinadha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh