Dismissed

Jai Srinivas v. State of Ap., Through

Telangana HC7 Dec 2015CRLP/12715/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order quashing two criminal petitions filed against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant after a divorce. The court found that since the second respondent (complainant) is not interested in pursuing the case further, the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1004 of 2014 were quashed and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Jai Srinivas Vs State of Ap., Through — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11990 AND 12715 OF 2011

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Both the criminal petitions are filed seeking to quash C.C.No.1004 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, and as such, both the criminal petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.12715 of 2011 is the husband of the complainant and he is arrayed as first accused and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11990 of 2011 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and that she is arrayed as second accused in crime No.404 of 2011, on the file of the Police Station, Neredmet, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

For convenience, we are referring to the parties as they are arrayed in Criminal Petition No.12715 of 2011.

¶6

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the criminal petitions submits that the complainant/second respondent lodged the complaint against the petitioners herein only with a view to harass the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner and the second respondent got divorced in the year 2007, by virtue of the orders passed in O.P.No.269 of 2006 and that the petitioner and the second respondent married other persons after getting the divorce and that they are residing in United States of America. Hence, he prays this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more specifically the fact that the second respondent is also not interested in pursuing the case further, this Court is of the view that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶9

In the result, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.1004 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

07.12.2015 pln

Jai Srinivas v. State of Ap., Through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Srinivas v. State of Ap., Through

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

Akkala Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Adhalth Kamalakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Manne Rahava Rao Vs Sri .v.v.Leeladhar

M/s Sheer Media (P) Ltd., Vs State of A.P.

Chekuri Shivaji Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Asif Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp