Dismissed

Mancha Katama Raju v. The State of Ap., Rep.byits

Telangana HC29 Apr 2014CRLP/2552/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash a Domestic Violence Case. The court held that grounds for quashing are defenses for the pending criminal inquiry and noted the abatement of the petition due to the death of one petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; domestic violence proceedings continue; appearance of some petitioners dispensed with.

Mancha Katama Raju Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2552 OF 2012

¶2

Dated 29-4-2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Mancha Katama Raju and others.

¶5

....Petitioners.

¶6

And:

¶7

The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.

¶8

Respondents.

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2552 OF 2012

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This petition is filed to quash D.V.C.No.5 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Badvel.

¶12

2. Heard the petitioner in person.

¶13

3. His contention is that earlier de facto complainant i.e., 2^nd respondent herein filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 on the self same grounds and the same is ended by order dated 16-10-2008 and now on the very same grounds, present D.V.C.5 of 2011 is filed and therefore, same is to be quashed.

¶14

4. Perused the material papers.

¶15

5. Though order of the earlier D.V.C. is not filed along with the material papers, petitioner at the time of arguments has produced copy of order in D.V.C.No.2 of 2008.

¶16

6. A perusal of the order, it appears that both first petitioner herein and de facto complainant i.e., 2^nd respondent herein filed a joint memo before the concerned court expressing their willingness to live together and accepting the joint memo, the court below

¶17

has closed D.V.C. but it is not decided on merits.

¶18

7. Now the allegations and counter allegations cannot be decided in a quash petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and all the grounds urged in the criminal petition are the defences available to the criminal petitioners to be agitated in the enquiry to be conducted in D.V.C.No.5 of 2011.

¶19

8. Petitioner submitted that second respondent died on 28-8-2013 and produced a death certificate.

¶20

9. On a perusal of the death certificate, the petition of second petitioner is closed as abated.

¶21

10. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions of the petitioner in person, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the D.V.C. and Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

11. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, presence of petitioners 3 and 4 dispensed with at the time of enquiry in D.V.C.No.5 of 2011 and they shall appear as and when directed by the court.

¶23

12. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶24

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 29-4-2014. Note: Issue C.C.today. BO Dvs.

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2552 OF 2012

¶27

Dated 29-4-2014

¶28

Dvs

Mancha Katama Raju v. The State of Ap., Rep.byits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mancha Katama Raju v. The State of Ap., Rep.byits

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

Ch.Rambabu Vs Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

Peyyalamitta Seethramanjaneya venkata Siva Vs Peyyalamitta Ajaya Krishna

Chinnimilli Venkateswara Rao Vs Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

Bonagiri Mallaiah , Mallesham Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

M/s. Ghanshyam Das Nagpal HUF (A-1) Vs M/s. Karvy Comtrade Limited

V.Madan Mohan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh