Quashed

Gaikwar Sangeetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Aug 2012CRLP/807/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court quash proceedings in a Section 498-A IPC trial against the petitioner (A-4), a relative of the husband, on the grounds that the allegations against her were vague, lacked specific details regarding the incident, and the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and unnecessary harassment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Crime No.198 of 2009 insofar as they relate to the petitioner A-4 are quashed.

Gaikwar Sangeetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.807 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash proceedings, including arrest of the petitioner, in Crime No.198 of 2009 of Yedapally Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for offence under Section 498-A IPC so far as the petitioner – A-4 is concerned.

¶4

2. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the case.

¶5

3. It is necessary to note briefly, the prosecution version as per the record available. In fact, it is alleged in the report said to be given by the de facto complainant to the police as follows:

¶6

The marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 took place 3 years prior to giving the report to the police. During the marital life, they begot a male child. A-1 used to harass her, having lost money in gambling show. Consequently, he also used to harass her mentally and physically to bring additional dowry from her parents and often send her away. It is also alleged that along with him, his parents A-2 and A-3 and his sister A-4 also used to beat her and send her to her parents’ house for bringing additional dowry. Further about one year prior to giving the report, A-1 to A-3 beat her and drove her out of the matrimonial house, following which she went to her parents’ house along with the child but, they did not take any care to take her back and on the other hand, they put a condition that unless the demanded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given, they would not take her back.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the A-4 would contend that no specific allegation is made against A-4 and in fact the allegations made against A-4 are very vague and she is a resident of Adilabad along

¶8

with her husband having married long back.

¶9

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶10

6. Having gone through the record, I am clearly of the opinion that the allegations made against A-4 are very vague and the record does not speak as to when the said incident took place. This is particularly, significant, in view of the plea that she has been residing along with her husband at Adilabad. It is needless to say that in matrimonial cases, the relatives of the husband are being planted to achieve certain object. Therefore, I feel that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings so far as

¶11

A-4 is concerned. Continuation of the proceedings against her is abuse of the process of law and unnecessary harassment of her.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.198 of 2009 of Yedapally Police Station, Nizamabad District in so far as A-4 is concerned are quashed.

¶13

________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶14

August 23, 2012. KTL

Gaikwar Sangeetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaikwar Sangeetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Palakuri Yadaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Madhu Sekhar [LW.1] Vs Vanam Narayana , Narayana Mehar

Thuppari Sunil Kumar , Sunil, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gadelli Ugra Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Babumiya , Abdul Raheem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Nagoor Sharif , Santosh Vs The State of a.P., through SHO of Police Station House