Allowed

G.Narsimhulu v. Smt. Sujatha

Telangana HC22 Aug 2014CRLP/11790/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash orders in a domestic violence matter. The Court set aside the trial court's order regarding an interim maintenance and police referral petition, finding it was passed without cogent reasons, and remitted the matter for proper disposal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; orders of Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 set aside; matter remmitted to trial Court for disposal.

G.Narsimhulu Vs Smt. Sujatha — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11790 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar.

¶4

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has no power to pass orders after disposal of the main D.V.C.

¶6

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable under law.

¶7

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the first respondent filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. After conducting full fledged trial D.V.C.No.1 to 2010 was allowed on 1301-2011 by granting maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the first respondent herein.

¶8

6. Thereafter the first respondent filed a petition under Section

¶9

18 of the Act in Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. On 08-11-2011, the trial Court allowed the said petition and referred the same to the Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

¶10

7. It is settled principle of law that the Court has to assign cogent and valid reasons to its findings. Instead of passing orders on merits the trial Court simply allowed the petition by way of docket order.

¶11

8. If this Court expresses any opinion with regard to the maintainability of Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 the same may cause prejudice to the parties. Therefore, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the maintainability of Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011.

¶12

9. Taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court on 08-11-2011 and remit the matter back to the trial Court for disposal, in accordance with law.

¶13

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar and matter is remitted back to the trial Court for disposal of Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2011, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to both the parties. Miscellaneous petitions if any

¶14

pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J August 22, 2014. Pn

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11790 of 2011

¶18

August 22, 2014. Pn

G.Narsimhulu v. Smt. Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narsimhulu v. Smt. Sujatha

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

N.Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs State of a.P., rep. through Spl. P.P. for CBI

Gadde Suryachandra Rao, Vs The Tahasildar

N.Venkata Ramana Murthy, Vs State of A.P.

M/s. Matuthi Travels , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madakam Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.