Dismissed

Juttada China Chandra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Apr 2014CRLP/2659/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of a Domestic Violence case. The court held that relatives accused of aiding the husband in domestic violence are concerned with the case and objections must be raised before the trial court, not via quashment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed as devoid of merits; dependent miscellaneous petitions stood dismissed.

Juttada China Chandra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2659 OF 2012 Dated 23-4-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Juttada China Chandrarao and others.

¶4

..Petitioners.

¶5

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

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2659 OF 2012

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This petition is filed to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 2. Heard both sides.

¶10

3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners who are father-in-law of de facto complainant, husband’s brother-in-law, husband’s sister, husband’s second sister, husband’s third sister and husband’s maternal uncle are implicated in Domestic Violence Case and as the relief of complainant is for maintenance, these petitioners are no way concerned with the D.V.C.case.

¶11

4. As seen from the record, Protection Officer, Domestic Cell, Vizianagaram filed complaint before Magistrate after making enquiry on the basis of complaint given by the de facto complainant to the Protection Officer. Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 2005) defines acts of domestic violence. Section 18 of the Act provided for passing protection orders under

¶12

the Act. Under Section 18, the aggrieved person can approach the court to restrain the respondents from committing acts of Domestic Violence or committing or abetting in commission of acts of Domestic Violence.

¶13

5. A plain reading of the complaint discloses that role of the petitioners herein is aiding and abetting the husband to commit acts of domestic violence. Therefore, the contention of the advocate for petitioners that petitioners are no way concerned with the provisions of domestic valiance act and that they are falsely implicated cannot be accepted. When there is prima facie allegations, correctness of these allegations cannot be decided in a quash petition and these objections can be raised before the trial court by the petitioners.

¶14

6 . For these reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶15

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

¶16

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI

¶17

KUMAR

¶18

Dated 23-4-2014. Dvs.

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2659 OF 2012

¶21

Dated 23-4-2014

¶22

Dvs

Juttada China Chandra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juttada China Chandra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Madam Sudhakar Gupta Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Syamala Sambi Reddy Vs Syamala Sujatha

Riaz Quraishi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk.Badhar Bee Vs Palavai Srinivasa Haranadha Reddy

Karolla chinnaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

Chintakuntla Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.