Dismissed

Chandragiri Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Nov 2011CRLP/8652/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the High Court held that the High Court held that the Magistrate is the proper authority to determine the truthfulness of allegations in a case u/s 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act and held. The Magistrate and not the police, it cannot be the proper authority to determine the truth of the matter as it requires judicial machinery to determine the matter. The court dismissed the criminal petiti

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.8652 of 2008 is dismissed.

Chandragiri Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8652 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Police after investigation referred the case as false and mistake of fact. On protest petition filed by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and after making enquiry in which four witnesses were examined, the Magistrate took the case on file for the above offences against the accused. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 2^nd respondent is indulging in immoral activities and is eloping with others and that therefore, the Family Court, Nalgonda, refused to award maintenance to the 2^nd respondent in M.C.No.29 of 2008. As against the said order refusing maintenance to the 2^nd respondent, she filed revision petition before this Court and it is stated to be pending. The said order has not become final. It is not for the Police to find whether there is truth or falsity in the allegations in the report/complaint. The Police during investigation, has to collect evidence and place the same before the Magistrate. It is for the Magistrate to sift and weigh the

¶5

evidence and to come to a conclusion whether the allegations are true or false. The Police cannot undertake the said judicial job. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that a false case was foisted against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Even as per investigation of the Police, there is payment of dowry of Rs.1,40,000/- and giving of ten tolas of gold to the accused at the time of marriage. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is false. Truth or falsity of the allegations involves questions of fact, which this Court cannot undertake in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Magistrate to decide the same after collecting evidence from both the parties. There are no grounds for quashing the case in this petition.

¶6

2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶7

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶8

Dt:10.11.2011 ysk

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8652 of 2008

¶11

Dt:10.11.2011

¶12

ysk

Chandragiri Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandragiri Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Badhavath Bhagwan Naik , Bhagwan , Naik, Vs The State, through Sho., Ps. Gopalapuram, Secunderabad

R. Hari John , Arjun, Vs The State of A.P.

G.Santosh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Ps., Bollaram

Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.

Buragadda Ashok Kumar, Vs Chalikonda Venkata Sesha Sai , Saibaba

Boddapati Vijay Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.