Dismissed

K.Sukanya v. J.Rani

Telangana HC25 Apr 2014CRLP/1941/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings under sections 498-A, 324, 307 and 149 IPC alleging offences against the husband. Rejecting the petitioners' claim of no connection, the Court held that prima facie material existed and directed them to file a discharge petition before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 1941 of 2012 was dismissed; petitioners directed to file discharge petition before Sessions Court.

K.Sukanya Vs J.Rani — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2012

¶6

Between: K. Sukanya & Ors. … Petitioners/A3, A4 & A5 V/s. J. Rani & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri A. Ravi Shankar Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor

¶7

The Court made the following : [order follows]

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2012

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in PRC.No. 46 of 2011 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Ananthapur district.

¶12

2. Heard both sides.

¶13

3. Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station filed

¶14

charge sheet against petitioners herein and three others for alleged offences punishable under section 498-A, 324, 307 read with section 149 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶15

4. According to Advocate for Petitioners, petitioners herein are the sisters of the first respondent i.e., husband of complainant and they are married sisters and they are residing elsewhere and no way connected with the alleged offences, therefore, proceedings against them have to be quashed.

¶16

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition.

¶17

6. As seen from the material on record, Police after examining

¶18

six witnesses filed charge sheet after satisfying that there is prima facie material against petitioners and three others. Now the contention

¶19

raised on behalf of petitioners are not supported by any material and at this stage those contentions cannot be taken into consideration in a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. The petitioners can as well file discharge petition before the concerned Sessions Court after PRC is committed taking all these grounds.

¶20

7. Considering the facts of the case and nature of allegations, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and that petitioners are at liberty to approach concerned Sessions Court by filing discharge petition taking all these grounds.

¶21

8. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

____________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.

¶24

25/04/2014 I s L

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2012

¶27

Circulation No. Date:25/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

K.Sukanya v. J.Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sukanya v. J.Rani

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

Viroju Suryanarayana Vs Viroju Chandrakala

G.Neelakatnam Vs Sri G.Malla Reddy

Pindralla Pullaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Mohd.Akber Vs Diwakar Nair

K. Srinivasa Raju, (A01), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shri K.Hanumanthu Vs State of a.p., rep. by