Dismissed

G. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Late G Narsimha Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Dec 2014CRLP/14410/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash domestic violence proceedings, holding that claimed reliefs are civil under the DV Act. As the question of merits could prejudice parties, quashing was not a fit case. However, the court dispensed with the mandatory presence of petitioners in subsequent hearings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; not a fit case to quash proceedings. Absence of petitioners in future adjournments dispensed with.

G. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Late G Narsimha Reddy, Vs The… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.14410 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners (respondent Nos.2 to 5 in DVC), to quash the proceedings in DVC No.4 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶5

The second respondent filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) against the petitioners and another claiming the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of DV Act. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents, petitioner No.3 is sister and petitioner No.4 is brother-inlaw of second respondent’s husband i.e., respondent No.1 in DVC. Whether the second respondent is entitled to any relief as against the petitioners or not will be decided during the course of trial. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v State of Andhra Pradesh^[1] , Mohit Yadam v State of Andhra Pradesh^[2] and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v Rizwana Sultana^[3] , the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil in nature. The reliefs claimed by the second respondent under Sections 18 to 22 of DV Act are civil in nature. Therefore, the maintainability of present petition is very much doubtful. If this court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties to the proceedings.

¶6

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of

¶7

the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 5 in DVC No.4 of 2014.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing much difficulty to attend the court on each and every date of adjournment. There is no dispute with regard to identity of the petitioners. Even if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the second respondent. Hence, the presence of petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 5 in DVC No.4 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, on each and every date of adjournment, is hereby dispensed with. However, the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is so required.

¶9

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶11

December 08, 2014. YS

¶12

[1] 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP) [2] 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP) [3] 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)

G. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Late G Narsimha Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Late G Narsimha Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Venugopal Vs A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn.

M.Satyavatamma Vs v.Prabhavathi

Bandari Rathnaiah Vs Smt. Haji Begum , Haji Maa

R.Ramachandraiah, Died. Vs Smt.R.Ammayamma

Dadi Ramaprasada Rao Vs Dadi Lakshmi Satyanarayana

N. Balaiah Vs M/s. Camlin Ltd.