Dismissed

G.Sandeep v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC21 Feb 2012CRLP/1929/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for criminal intimidation. The court held that abusive language, repeated harassment, and threats to vacate the house constituted a prima facie offence, precluding quashing. The petition to dispense with the presence of some accused was directed to be handled via a separate application at the tria

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; petitioners must file separate applications before the trial court to dispense with presence of respondents 2-4.

G.Sandeep Vs The State of Ap. — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1929 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners (A.1 to A.4), under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.52 of 2012 on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

¶5

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the criminal petition may be stated as follows:

¶6

The 2^nd respondent herein lodged a complaint with Chikkadpally P.S., Hyderabad, against the petitioners alleging that her marriage with the 1^st petitioner was performed at Chennai on 02.07.1990 and, after marriage, they shifted to Hyderabad and lived happily thereat for a period of 17 years; that thereafter her husband and in-laws changed their behaviour towards her and started harassing, abusing and beating her; that unable to bear their humiliation, she filed a Domestic Violence Case No.7 of 2009 against them and the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order restraining them from committing any violence against her; and that inspite of the same, the petitioners are ill-treating and torturing her both physically and mentally for no fault of her. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law always abused her in vulgar language, while coming and going out of the house. Again on 19.12.2011 her husband G. Sandeep came in a drunken condition at about 10.30 p.m., started abusing her in most filthy

¶7

language and threatened to vacate the house calling her ‘Fakeer”. When her husband was abusing, she called Chikkadpally Police, who, after coming to her home, informed her that it is a family matter and left the place. She scared of her husband and in-laws that there was a threat to her life. The complaint was registered as Crime No.497 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and, after completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet before the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and numbered the same as C.C.No.52 of 2012.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegation that it is the husband who threatened the 2^nd respondent to vacate the house, does not amount to criminal intimation punishable under Section 506 of IPC and, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings.

¶9

4. Now, it is appropriate to refer to Section 503 of IPC (criminal intimidation), which reads as follows:

¶10

“Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

¶11

5. The allegations that on 19.12.2001 the 1^st petitioner came in a drunken condition and abused the 2^nd respondent in most

¶12

filthy language and threatened her to vacate the house calling her as ‘fakeer’ and that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were abusing the 2^nd respondent in vulgar language while coming to, and going out of, the house and the same was witnessed by her maid servant’s daughter. It is also stated by one of the witnesses that the husband and in-laws of the complainant were harassing the complainant physically and mentally and threatened her to withdraw the domestic violence case filed against them. This act of the petitioners would certainly cause mental agony to the complainant and made out a prima facie offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and, hence, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise.

¶13

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the criminal petition shall stand dismissed.

¶14

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 before the trial Court. For that purpose, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have to file an application before the trial Court seeking to dispense with their presence and, on filing of such application, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶15

21^st February, 2012 cbs

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1929 of 2012

¶19

(Dismissed)

¶20

21^st February, 2012

¶21

cbs

G.Sandeep v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sandeep v. The State of Ap.

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

M.Sriramulu Vs The State of a.P., through the Sho.

A.P.Armugham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tadepalli Seethapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bedampudi Sathibabu , Sathiya Vs State of Ap.

Polur Lavanya Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits

Dr. N.Nageswara Rao, Vs Chetti Prasad