Dismissed

Thummanapally Vanaja, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Aug 2014CRLP/10777/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding dowry-related offences, the Court held that allegations were prima facie sufficient for investigation. The petition was dismissed, but the accused were directed not to be arrested pending investigation or filing of the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; direction given not to arrest petitioners till completion of investigation or filing of charge sheet.

Thummanapally Vanaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10777 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 9 and 11 to 13 in Cr.No.87 of 2011 of Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District.

¶4

The facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly are as follows: The 2 nd respondent lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.87 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and others.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence.

¶7

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

This Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the

¶9

offence alleges to have been committed by the petitioner; (2) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner; (3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; or (4) if the registration of crime and continuation of investigation would amount to misuse of process of law; and (5) to meet the ends of justice.

¶10

A perusal of the complaint discloses that the marriage of the nd 2 respondent was performed with the accused No.1 on 27.11.2009 at Karimnagar. Immediately after the marriage, the 2 nd respondent joined with the accused No.1, who is staying in Ahmednagar Town of Maharashtra State. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein along with other accused harassed the 2 nd respondent for additional dowry. This Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The fact remains that the 2 nd respondent and the accused No.1 have appeared before the District Legal Services Authority on 16.05.2011 for amicable settlement. It appears that the parties have entered into a compromise, but the same could not be implemented for the reasons best known to them. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie sufficient to proceed with the investigation.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused No.1 obtained a regular bail. He further submitted that a direction may be given to the concerned Station House Officer not to arrest the petitioners till completion of the investigation. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 04.11.2011 and the same has been in force

¶12

till today.

¶13

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District not to arrest the petitioners herein in Cr.No.87 of 2011 till completion of investigation or filing of the charge sheet.

¶14

With the above observations, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J th 8 August, 2014.

¶16

siva

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10777 of 2011

¶19

th 8 August, 2014.

¶20

siva

Thummanapally Vanaja, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thummanapally Vanaja, 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

Mohd. lliyas , Riyaz, Vs Smt. Muneer Begum

Bheri Madhavi Vs Bheri Veera Vara Ravindra Prasad

Chelikani Pardhasaradhi Vs the State of A.P.

Satti Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandham Krishna , Puvvula Krishna Vs The State of A.P.

K.Karunakar Reddy Vs The State of A.P.