Dismissed

Ganduri Shankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Apr 2014CRLP/407/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order in Criminal Petition No. 407 of 2012 holding that quashing taking cognizance in a Domestic Violence case is unjustified as trial has commenced; directs trial court to dispose of the main case within stipulated time and dispenses with petitioners' presence except as directed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of DVC.No. 26 of 2011 expeditiously; petitioners' presence in trial dispensed with except as directed.

Ganduri Shankar, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT WARANGAL

¶2

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 407 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ganduri Shankar & Ors. … Petitioners/R2 to R6 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao

¶9

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

¶10

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 407 OF 2012

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash orders of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet, Nalgonda district, challenging taking cognizance in DVC.No. 26 of 2011.

¶15

2. The petitioners are relatives of husband of second respondent

¶16

herein, who is complainant in DVC.No. 26 of 2011.

¶17

3. Heard both sides.

¶18

4. From the submissions of both sides, it is clear that trial of

¶19

DVC has already commenced and PW-1 was also examined. Now at this stage considering request of petitioners for quashing taking cognizance may not be justified and instead of that trial court can be directed to dispose of the main case within a stipulated time and by dispensing with the presence of these petitioners before the trial court for each and every adjournment and to appear before trial court as and when the trial Judge feels that their presence is necessary for disposal of main case.

¶20

5. For these reasons, Criminal Petition is disposed off with an

¶21

observation that I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet shall dispose of DVC.No. 26 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and the presence of petitioners 1 to 5 in this petition is dispensed with during trial of the case but they shall appear as and when directed by the trial court.

¶22

_____________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.

¶23

01/04/2014 I s L

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 407 OF 2012

¶26

CIRCULATION No. 29 Date:01/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Ganduri Shankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganduri Shankar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pericherla Vijaya Anand Kumar , Kumar, Vs Smt Pericherla Satya (Gokaraju)

Poluri Ranga Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bala Ananthamma, Vs Balaji Chandrasekhar Babu, , Balaji Chandrasekhar Chowdary

Darshnam Lalitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jaleel, Vs Stae of A.P.

B. Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh