Allowed

Habeebunnisa (A-4) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC3 Aug 2012CRLP/6487/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court examined allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence. Finding that A4 to A6 faced only bald allegations without specific accusations and that their past marriage and residence status made false implication likely, the court quashed the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings under C.C.No.231 of 2009 quashed; Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Habeebunnisa (A-4) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6487 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash proceedings in C.C.No.231 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

2. The petitioners are A4 to A6 and the 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the Calendar Case. For convenience sake I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case.

¶6

3. A1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the married sister of A1, A5 is the husband of A4, and A6 is the brother of A1.

¶7

4. The prosecution version is that A1 married the

¶8

de facto complainant on 16.04.2007. At that time, dowry of Rs.50,000/- 3½ tulas of gold and 15 tulas of Silver ornaments and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- were given to them. A1 to A3 alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant for bringing additional dowry amount in several ways. The specific allegation made against A4 to A6 is that on

¶9

19.01.2009 A4 to A6 along with A1 to A3 abused and beat t h e de facto complainant and necked her out from the matrimonial house. It is claimed that on 26.01.2009 the de facto complainant along with others approached the accused to settle the matter, but the accused did not give any response at all and finally the

¶10

de facto complainant was neglected and deserted by the accused.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for A4 to A6 would contend that only bald allegations are made against A4 to A6, in other words, no specific allegations are made against them and in fact about twenty years ago the marriage of A4 and A5 was performed and A6 is studying Engineering course and without any basis and to harass them a false case was foisted against them.

¶12

6. The records available provide that A4 is aged 34 years, and A5 is aged 45 years. It also shows that A4 and A5 are the residents of different place. Therefore, it is clear that the marriage of A4 and A5 would have been performed many years ago. Probably they would be living separate from the house of A6 or A1 to A3 from the date of their marriage. In fact, only bald allegations are made against A4 to A6, in other words, no specific allegations are made against them by and large with reference to the overall circumstances of

¶13

the case. It is easy to make allegations in a criminal case against others and make them suffer. The circumstances of the case as a whole are to be taken into consideration in the present context. In that view of the matter, it clearly appears that a false case was foisted against A4 to A6. I see much force in the contentions of the learned counsel for A4 to A6.

¶14

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J

¶16

03^rd August, 2012. Tsy

Habeebunnisa (A-4) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeebunnisa (A-4) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its 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

Shaik Abdulla, Vs The State of A.P.

Bennuri Amarnath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Manohar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Narsimha Chary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Satyanarayana Vs Inspector of Police

Guttula Satyanarayana Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor