Dismissed

Katta Narasimha Rao v. Katta Saritha

Telangana HC6 Aug 2014CRLP/2236/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Court held that enquiry should expedite by dispensing with petitioner's presence for adjournments. Case disposed directing disposal within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed court below to expedite enquiry and dispose within four months by dispensing with petitioners' presence for adjournments.

Katta Narasimha Rao Vs Katta Saritha — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2236 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Katta Narasimha Rao & Ors. … Petitioners/R2 to R-4

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Katta Saritha & Anr. … Respondents/complainant

¶10

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy

¶11

Counsel for Respondents : Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar for R-1 Public Prosecutor for R-2

¶12

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2236 OF 2012

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in DVC.No. 21 of 2010 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, filed against petitioners under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Act No.43 of 2005].

¶17

2. Heard both sides.

¶18

3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners are respondents 2 to 4 in DVC.No. 21 of 2010 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam and they are no way connected with the domestic relationship of first respondent herein and they are falsely implicated.

¶19

4. On the other hand, Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Advocate for first respondent submitted that according to his instructions, enquiry is already commenced and the correctness of allegations cannot be decided at this stage in a 482 Cr.P.C. petition.

¶20

5. Considering the submissions of both sides, I feel that this criminal petition can be disposed of directing the court below to expedite enquiry by dispensing with the presence of petitioners for

¶21

each and every adjournment.

¶22

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the court below to expedite the enquiry in DVC.No. 21 of 2010 and dispose of it as early as possible, preferably within four months, from the date of receipt of this order by dispensing with the presence

¶23

of petitioners for each and every adjournment. However, the petitioners shall appear as and when directed by the trial court, if

¶24

their physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose.

¶25

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this

¶26

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶27

___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .

¶28

06/08/2014 I s L.

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2236 OF 2012

¶31

Circulation No. 4 6 Date: 06/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43

Katta Narasimha Rao v. Katta Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katta Narasimha Rao v. Katta Saritha

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. Ayub Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Alladi Aruna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Hemanth Reddy, Vs G.Ratnakar Reddy

Boddu Jayachandra Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Syed Khasim Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

K. Ganga Ratnamma, Vs Te State of Andhra Pradesh