Partly allowed

Jannu Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011CRLP/8725/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against petitioners A3 and A4, holding allegations against them were not helpful to rope them in. The petition was partly dismissed as proceedings against other accused were not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners A3 and A4; partly dismissed the petition.

Jannu Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8725 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. A1 is husband of the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant. A2 is brother and A3 and A4 are parents of A1. A1 is working as a Software Engineer, previously at Hyderabad and presently at Chennai. On total reading of allegations in the charge sheet, FIR and statement of the 2^nd respondent given to the Police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., there are specific allegations against A1 touching Clause- (b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. The petition is being concentrated on A2 to A4 by the petitioners’ counsel.

¶5

2. A2 is a resident of Vijayawada. A3 and A4 are residents of Gudlavalleru of Krishna District. It is alleged that when the 2^nd respondent contacted A2 and A3 and reported about A1’s harassment for the sake of additional dowry, etc., they advised the 2^nd respondent to follow what A1 told her; and they expressed their inability to

¶6

interfere in the matter. The said allegations are not helpful to rope in A3 and A4 also in this case, along with A1. It is nobody’s case that A3 and A4 also joined A1 in demanding additional dowry and harassing the 2^nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry.

¶7

3. It is alleged that A2 who is elder brother of A1, was frequently contacting the 2^nd respondent on phone and conveyed demand of A1 for the sake of money and questioned the 2^nd respondent as to why she cannot bring money from her parents when A1 was earning salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. It is further alleged that A2 was threatening the 2^nd respondent by saying that in case A1 married another girl, he would have got more dowry and A1 is contemplated to give divorce to her. The said allegation made against A2, squarely attract ingredients under Section 498-A I.P.C. Therefore, A2 cannot avoid facing trial in this case.

¶8

4. In the result, the Criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.45 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda, insofar as the petitioners 3 and 4/A3 and A4 are concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in other respects.

¶9

_______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

Dt:11.11.2011 ysk

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8725 of 2008

¶13

ysk

¶14

Dt:11.11.2011

Jannu Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jannu Srinivasa Rao, 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

Chandragiri Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Buragadda Ashok Kumar, Vs Chalikonda Venkata Sesha Sai , Saibaba

Vadlamudi Lakshminarayana, (A3) Vs The State of A.P.

V. Poornima, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Syed Wajid Abdi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh