Dismissed

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

Telangana HC4 Dec 2015CRLP/12827/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature and not fit for quashing. Consequently, the criminal petition to quash was dismissed, but the personal presence of the petitioners was dispensed with in the domestic violence case.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015 dispensed with on each date of adjournment; Criminal Petition dismissed.

Adhalth Kamalakar Rao Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12827 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners (respondent Nos.2 and 3) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Ramannapet.

¶5

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioners and three others claiming various reliefs under the Act. The learned Magistrate after satisfying himself with the material placed before him has taken the case on file numbered the same as DVC 141 of 2015 and issued summons to the respondents.

¶6

3. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana, the reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil in nature and there is no element of criminality.

¶7

4. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by the second respondent are purely civil in nature without any element of criminality. Whether the second respondent is entitled to claim reliefs against the petitioners or not has to be decided during the course of trial only. A perusal of the record reveals the role played by the petitioners. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the case, the same will cause prejudice to either of the parties. In such circumstances, the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.

¶8

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings

¶9

against the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in DVC No.1 of 2015.

¶10

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3, who are parents of respondent No.1, are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, their presence may be dispensed with.

¶11

7. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3. Even if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice would be caused to the second respondent.

¶12

8 . Hence, the presence of petitioners/respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet, is hereby dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment. However, the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.

¶13

9. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶14

10. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶16

Date:04.12.2015 Rns

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Axmath Zahara, Vs Md. Asadullah Baig

G.Suraj Kumar, Vs Smt. Saritha

Pankaj Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Rodda gopal Vs The State of Ap.

Sanagadi Arjuna Rao Vs Sanagadi Devi

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