Quashed

Kota Venkata Rama Rao, (A-4), v. Kota Lakshmi Tulasi , Tulasamma

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRLP/12028/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners-A.4 to A.6. Finding no specific allegations of harassment against them in the victim's statement, the court held the proceedings unsustainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against petitioners-A.4 to A.6 pending in C.C.No.43 of 2010 are quashed.

Kota Venkata Rama Rao, (A-4), Vs Kota… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12028 OF 2010

¶3

DATED 11^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶4

BETWEEN :

¶5

K.Venkata Rama Rao & 2 others .. PetitionersA.4 to A.6

¶6

and

¶7

1) Kota Lakshmi Tulasi 2) The State of A.P.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12028 OF 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Petitioners-A.4 to A.6 preferred the present Criminal Petition by invoking the provision under Section 4892 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash proceedings against them pending in C.C.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District, for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

It is the case of the de facto complainant-R.1 herein that on 27.08.2005 her marriage was performed with A.1, at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.4 lakhs cash as dowry to A.1 and Rs.50,000/- towards Adabidda dowry to A.6 and also presented household articles worth Rs.1 lakh to A.1 to A.3 as per their demand. Later, she gave birth to a female child on 11.07.2006 and since then A.1 with the active support of A.2 to A.6 started harassing the victim to bring additional dowry since she gave birth to a female child. In spite of taking additional dowry of Rs.1,80,000/- also A.1 did not change his

¶14

attitude, even the elders’ efforts to settle the issue also went in vain. Having left with no option, she lodged a report before the Police, who in turn registered the same in crime No.131 of 2008 and after due investigation, Police filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as C.C.No.43 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet.

¶15

Heard arguments of either side counsel and also perused the material on record more particularly the statement of L.W.1-victim recorded during the course of investigation by the investigation agency.

¶16

The only allegation made by the victim against the present petitioners is as follows:

¶17

“with an intention to get rid of me, my husband, my fatherin-law Sambasiva Rao, my mother-in-law Adilakshmi, my husband’s sister Sivaparvathi, are instigating my in-laws to desert me for getting more additional dowry.”

¶18

The entire reading of the statement and also the perusal of the record, except an information that the petitioners also harassed, the complainant has not stated anything specifically attributing any harassment or ill-treatment towards her by the present petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioners are not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

¶19

Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 to A.6 pending in C.C.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District, are hereby quashed.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶22

11^th October, 2012 sur

Kota Venkata Rama Rao, (A-4), v. Kota Lakshmi Tulasi , Tulasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Venkata Rama Rao, (A-4), v. Kota Lakshmi Tulasi , Tulasamma

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

Sheik Phakir Mohammad Khasim Basha , Basha Vs The State of a.P., rep.by the P.P.

T.R.Ramanujam Vs State of Ap.

Pillarisetty Ramabadra, Vs Taragala Venugopal Rao , Venu

Lanka Sanyasi Rao, Vs State of A.P.

Dunthuluri Venkateswar Rao, Vs Gangapatilla Murali

The State , rep by Cbi, Hyderabad, Vs Sri v.Narsimha Reddy