Dismissed

B.S.Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2014CRLP/2419/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners requested withdrawal with liberty to file a discharge application, which was granted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file discharge application granted.

B.S.Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Criminal Petition No.2419 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of all further proceedings C.C.No.180 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penugonda, Ananthapur District. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners and another for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶5

While dealing with the scope of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Redd y^[1] , observed as under:-

¶6

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code. (KAVITA V. STAT E^[2] and B.S. JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYAN A³ ) If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

¶7

In view of the judgment in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ R a m u (1 supra) learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Criminal Petition with liberty to file an application for discharge, in case the charges have not already framed.

¶8

Since the second petitioner is mother-in-law and third petitioner is brother-in-law of the second respondent and they are residing at Bangalore, it is difficult for them to appear before the Court at Ananthapur on every date of adjournment.

¶9

Granting liberty as sought for, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners are at liberty to file an application for discharge, in case charges are not already framed, and uninfluenced by filing of the present Criminal Petition the Learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. The petitioners, if so advised, shall also file an application before the Trial Court seeking dispensation of their presence which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

21.03.2014 gkv

¶12

[1] 2011(2) ALD (Crl.) 948 (SC) [2] 2000 Cr LJ 315 3 (2003) 4 SCC 675

B.S.Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva 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

Dr. K.Hemanth Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Sambi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Alakuntla Venkanna S/o Mallaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Al-Kabeer Exports Private Ltd., Vs State

Sri Pagolu Pramod KUmar Vs The State of Ap.