Disposed

Chintha Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2014CRLP/9287/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of a petition seeking quashment of proceedings for alleged 498-A IPC offences. The court dismissed the petition, remanding it to the trial court for trial in 6 months, dispensing petitioners' presence at adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to take up trial and dispose within six months; petitioners' presence dispensed for adjournments.

Chintha Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Ap. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9287 OF 2012 Dated 4-9-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Chinta Vijayalakshmi and others.

¶4

..Petitioners.

¶5

And:

¶6

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

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9287 OF 2012 ORDER:

¶9

This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda, for alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C.

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

The main grievance of the advocate for petitioners is that petitioners herein who are A.2 to A.4, are no way concerned with the husband of second respondent herein and they are no way concerned with the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

¶12

As seen from the complaint, the allegations against the petitioners is that they have conspired with A.1 i.e., husband of second respondent and forcibly obtained signature of the complainant on papers against the wish of the complainant and that Section 34 I.P.C. is attributed against the petitioners.

¶13

The court after considering material took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners

¶14

also.

¶15

Now at this stage, the correctness of the cognizance order cannot be decided. However, since the petitioners are not relatives of A.1 and de facto complainant, considering the submissions and material papers, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of directing the court below to take up the trial and consider the objection is of the petitioners by dispensing with their presence for each and every adjournment.

¶16

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the court below to take up the trial and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of this order and petitioners are at liberty to urge all these grounds before the trial court and that the trial court shall consider them without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. Further, their presence be dispensed with for each and every adjournment. However, the petitioner shall appear as and when trial court feels their physical presence is necessary.

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶20

Dated 4-9-2014. Dvs.

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9287 OF 2012

¶23

Dated 4-9-2014

¶24

Dvs

Chintha Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintha Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Ap.

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

Samba Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

K.Mohana Kumar, Vs Sk. Baazi

Kolluri Veera Raju, Vs The State of A.P

M/s. Pratyankara Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Belle Agencies

Shabana Vs State of A.P.

Baddhe Dhanaraj Vs The State of A.P.