Dismissed

Jai Prakash Sharma v. Smt. Gayatri Sharma, w/o Sarvesh Sharma

Telangana HC22 Apr 2015CRLP/3116/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of Section 498-A proceedings. It held that since the related calendar case is pending, quashment is not desirable. The Court also dispensed with the petitioners' personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Appearance of both petitioners dispensed with in the calendar case; Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed.

Jai Prakash Sharma Vs Smt. Gayatri Sharma, w/o Sarvesh… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

Criminal Petition No. 3116 of 2015

¶3

Order:

¶4

The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in Calendar Case No.108 of 2013 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who are facing the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, requesting to quash the proceedings therein.

¶5

2. The facts would reveal that the first respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner, filed a complaint alleging that the first petitioner being her father-inlaw and the second petitioner being her husband’s elder brother along with the first accused, who is her husband, subsequent to the marriage, which took place on 26.06.2004, started harassing her demanding her to get additional dowry. Certain instances were referred to by the complainant in the allegations levelled against A-1 to A-3.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. As seen from the copy of charge sheet, the first accused who is the husband of the first respondent – complainant is shown as absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first accused and the first respondent together responsible for getting the complaint filed through the first respondent with an oblique motive to get the share of the first accused in the family properties.

¶8

5. Since the Calendar Case is pending before the aforementioned Court, it is not desirable, at this stage, to quash the proceedings in the Calendar Case.

¶9

6. As seen from the material on record, the first petitioner is 80 years old, of course, the second petitioner is 35 years old. They are residents of Kothagudem, Khammam District, whereas the first respondent is residing at Hyderabad. Keeping in view, the age of the first petitioner and the general notice given in a newspaper, which the learned counsel says that it was published in ‘Eenadu Telugu daily’, to the effect that the first petitioner ceased to have connections with the first accused and not to lend any amounts to the first accused, it is desirable to dispense with the presence of both the petitioners in Court during the pendency of the proceedings in the above Calendar Case.

¶10

7. Accordingly, the appearance of both the petitioners herein is dispensed with in Calendar Case No.108 of 2013 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, but however, as and when directed by the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, both the petitioners shall attend the Court.

¶11

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

¶12

9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶14

Date: 22.04.2015

¶15

Nsr

Jai Prakash Sharma v. Smt. Gayatri Sharma, w/o Sarvesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Sharma v. Smt. Gayatri Sharma, w/o Sarvesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Golkonda srinivas

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Dr.S.Annapurna

The Depot Manager, Vs Vadlamudi Subba Rao

Borru Siva Naga Raju Vs The State of Telengana

Y. Prabhakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Kistapati Ramaiah , Ramana Reddy