This court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The petitioners were parents-in-law of the complainant, with only two petitioners facing triable allegations of assault despite no dowry allegations.
The Criminal Petition is dismissed; proceedings in the lower Court are continued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Crl.P.No.5809 of 2012
O R D E R:
The petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 who are parents-inlaw of the de facto complainant are accused of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Admittedly there was
no dowry at the time of marriage between the 1st respondent/de facto complainant and A.1. Insofar as A.2 and A.3 are concerned, it is alleged that A.2 and A.3 were always accusing the 1st respondent that she did not bring any dowry and that on 22.02.2010 when there was quarrel, A.2 and A.3 rushed and that during the quarrel A.2 and A.3 beat the de facto complainant as well as her parents. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the statement recorded from the de facto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of A.2 and A.3 beating the de facto complainant. It is not his contention that there is no allegation of A.2 and A.3 beating parents of the de facto complainant. There are triable allegations against A.2 and A.3 in this case. I do not find any reason to quash pending proceedings in the lower Court.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt. 1st August, 2012
PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners should be quashed in the absence of dowry allegations against some accused but presence of triable assault allegations against others
Whether alleged inconsistency in the complaint recording Statement between Section 161 CrPC and the FIR warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3
1st Respondent/De facto Complainant
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
