Dismissed

T. Sridevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Nov 2014CRLP/10621/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash domestic violence proceedings in Nizamabad. The court held reliefs sought were civil in nature and the suit required a trial. Petition dismissed; court permitted petitioners to be absent from adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Permission to dispense with presence of petitioners (respondents 4 to 7) in adjournments; petition dismissed.

T. Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10621 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1 This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.4 to 7 in DVC No.23 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

¶4

2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners. He further submitted that no specific allegation is made against the petitioners.

¶5

3 The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the main case.

¶6

4 A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent filed DVC No.23 of 2009 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘DVC Act’) on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad against the petitioners and others seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DVC Act. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to their inter se relationship.

¶7

5 As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana, the various reliefs sought under the provisions of DVCNo.23 of 2009 are civil in nature. There is no element of criminality in the reliefs sought by the second respondent. The allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, reveal the role played by the petitioners. The very maintainability of the petition itself is very much doubtful in view of the nature of the reliefs sought for by the second respondent.

¶8

6 Whether the second respondent is entitled to claim the reliefs against the petitioners or not is purely a question of fact, which requires a full fledged trial and the same cannot be gone into while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If this Court expresses any opinion, touching the merits of the case, the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties.

¶9

7 Viewed from factual or legal aspects, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

¶10

8 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing much difficulty in attending the Court on each and every adjournment. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioners. Even if the

¶11

presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the second respondent. Therefore, the presence of the petitioners who are respondent Nos.4 to 7 in DVC No.23 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad on each and every adjournment is hereby dispensed with. However, the petitioners/respondents 4 to 7 shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is required. 9 With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

¶13

November 05, 2014. Kvsn

T. Sridevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sridevi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaddam Gajjaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Anumala Raja Sekhar Vs The State of A.P.

Vennela Kanti Saravana Kumar Vs The Station House Officer

Nandamuri Bala Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gowli Niroopa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Mahaboob Sharif, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh