Dismissed

Beligiri Sridhar v. Smt.Beligiri Rakhee

Telangana HC9 Dec 2015CRLP/12868/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that criminal proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act related to D.V.C.No.24 of 2015 were not maintainable for quashing via Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the petition, deemed the reliefs civil in nature, but allowed Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 to be dispensed with from attending every trial date.

What did the court decide?

Presence of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 dispensed with in trial court; Criminal Petition dismissed.

Beligiri Sridhar Vs Smt.Beligiri Rakhee — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12868 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in D.V.C.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶6

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the first respondent is the petitioner in D.V.C.No.24 of 2015. A perusal of the record further reveals that the first respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the petitioners, claiming various reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act. The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself with the material placed before him, has taken the case on file and numbered it as D.V.C.No.24 of 2015.

¶7

4. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. [1] State of Andhra Pradesh , Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra [2] [3] 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 therein.

¶8

5. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by the first respondent are purely civil in nature and there is no element of criminality. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals the role played by the petitioners. Whether the first respondent is entitled to claim the reliefs from the petitioners or not will be decided after full-fledged trial only. In

¶9

such circumstances, the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.

¶10

6. 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 against the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in D.V.C.No.24 of 2015.

¶11

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the relatives of the first respondent, are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, their presence may be dispensed with.

¶12

8. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Even if their presence is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent.

¶13

9. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispense with the presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are respondent Nos.2 to 4 in D.V.C. No.24 of 2015, before the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. However, they shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

_________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶17

Date: 09.12.2015 Ivd

¶18