Allowed

Shapur Karthik, v. K.Savitha Reddy

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013CRLP/1572/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act filed by the petitioner's wife. A settlement deed had been executed, and the complainant authorized her father to compound the case, stating no objection to quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2011 in the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad.

Shapur Karthik, Vs K.Savitha Reddy — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1572 of 2013

Date: 25.02.2013

Between:

Shapur Karthik

…Petitioner/Accused no.1

¶7

And

¶8

K.Savitha Reddy and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1572 of 2013

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2011 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1, respondent No.1/de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶15

The private complaint filed by the first respondent who is the wife of the petitioner was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police and on receiving the same, the police Alwal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.514 of 2010 under Sections 498(A) IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner/A1 only by deleting the names of A2 to A4.

¶16

Subsequent thereto, the first respondent/A1 entered into settlement deed dated 03.01.2013 whereby and whereunder they settled all the disputes which include compromise in the present case. The first respondent, who is now living abroad by virtue of her employment issued General Power of Attorney dated 06.07.2012 in favour of her father K.Surender Reddy authorizing him inter alia, to compromise, compound or withdraw the cases pending in the Courts. The father of the de facto complainant, who is now present in the Court stated that his daughter settled all her disputes with the petitioner and authorized him to compound the present case and he also stated that his daughter has no objection for quashing the present case.

¶17

Considering the nature of the offence and the fact that no public interest is involved in the present case, I am of the view that keeping the matter pending any longer would cause hardship and inconvenience to the parties and to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings.

¶18

Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2011 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad against the petitioner/A1 are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this petition shall stand closed.

¶19

________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶20

Date: 25.02.2013 kvrm

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1572 of 2013

¶23

Date: 25.02.2013

Shapur Karthik, v. K.Savitha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shapur Karthik, v. K.Savitha Reddy

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

R. Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Gopal Puttikar Jhonny, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Thirupathi Reddy Vs The State rep. by its P.P.

Mohd Ahmed Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor Vs The State of A.P.

Challa Venkata Rami Reddy , Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh