Dismissed

Shaik Jahangeer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Oct 2015CRLP/9705/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal order disposed of petition to quash proceedings for dowry offences. Court refused quash but granted liberty to file discharge application under Section 239, citing lack of facts for quashing. Magistrate directed to consider exceptions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without quashing proceedings; liberty granted to file application under Section 239 CrPC.

Shaik Jahangeer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9705 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.222 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Saluru, Vizianagaram District, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.63 of 2015 of Saluru Police Station, Vizianagaram District, which is outcome of report of 3^rd respondent—de facto complainant.

¶5

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 as well as 2^nd respondent—State represented by learned Public Prosecutor before admission and before ordering notice to 3^rd respondent—de facto complainant. Perused the material on record.

¶6

3) As the facts falls short for this Court to admit the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in Calender case but for to the entitlement of concession of regular bail, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to petitioners to file an application to discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C, if there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 240 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall consider only from the prosecution material vide State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. Needless to say, in the event of filing any application under Rule 37 Cr.R.P on behalf of the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 for one to represent others, the learned Magistrate shall consider and permit with necessary conditions including personal appearance as and when required.

¶7

4) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶8

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶9

Dt.12.10.2015

¶10

Knl

¶11

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9705 of 2015

¶13

Date:12.10.2015

¶14

knl

Shaik Jahangeer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jahangeer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

P.Nageswara Reddy Vs M/s Adhiti Constructions

P.Nageswara Reddy Vs M/s Adhiti Constructions

P. Nageswara Reddy, Vs M/s Adhiti Constructions

Mr. Surabhi Venka Anirudha Jagannadha Rao Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Mogali Ramakrishna Vs Channaboina Rani

Smt. G. Nagabindhu, Vs The State of Telangana