Quashed

B.Damodar Reddy v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC14 Feb 2012CRLP/1590/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a divorce and dowry harassment case. Upon finding that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and filed a Memorandum of Understanding, the Court held that continuing the proceedings was futile and quashed them in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2011 were quashed.

B.Damodar Reddy Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRL.P.No.1590 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 to A4 in C.C.No.69 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar to quash the proceeding therein.

¶5

The second respondent-complainant presented a report before the Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station alleging inter alia that she has been married to petitioner No.1 on 23-10-2009 at Ananthula Ram Reddy Gardens, Nagole, Uppal as per Hindu rites and customs. That she has been harassed by the petitioners herein on the ground of additional dowry. Basing on the said report a case in Cr.No.388 of 2010 came to be registered by the Station House Officer, Medipally. After due investigation, the Station House Officer, Medipally filed charge sheet before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as c.C.No.69 of 2011. Hence, this petition.

¶6

Pending the criminal petition, the second respondentde facto complainant and her parents viz., Raghupati Reddy and Kalavathi and the petitioners appeared before

¶7

the Court and stated that disputes between them have been settled amicably. They also placed on record a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding and undertaking. The parties have been duly identified by the counsel appearing on their behalf.

¶8

In exercise of wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court is empowered to quash the proceedings if it comes to conclusion that the ends of justice so requires. When no useful purpose is likely to serve by proceeding further, as the parties have settled the matter out side the Court, it is an exercise futile and in the interest of justice and equity, it is not desirable to continue the proceedings.

¶9

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶10

__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶11

rkk Dated: 14-2-2012

B.Damodar Reddy v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Damodar Reddy v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

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

Kalla Krishnavatharam, Vs The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Kondeti Eusin Premsion, Vs Shaik Khaseem Saheb

Mr. Rajiv Sawhani, Vs Smt. Divya Sahani

S.K.Abdul Nayeem Vs State of Ap.

Chinna Swamy Pandian Vs The State of Ap.

Reddi Ramannamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh