Disposed

Ponnula Venkata Subbamma v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC26 Feb 2016CRLP/2551/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order acquiesced petitioners confined arguments to dispensing with presence at trial rather than quashing. Court denied quash after charge sheet filed. Accused presence dispensed except if trial court insists. Husband directed to appear on behalf of petitioners. Criminal petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners before trial Court dispensed except on dates trial court insists; husband to represent them; appeal dismissed without interference.

Ponnula Venkata Subbamma Vs The State of Ap. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2551 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.168 of 2016 on the file of the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶5

The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with A1 harassed the de facto complainant - 2^nd respondent demanding additional dowry. Admittedly, after duly investigating into the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused. A reading of charge sheet also reveals some allegations against the petitioners, truth of which can be decided only after due trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶6

After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners while not pressing for the main prayer, confined his arguments only to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates on which the trail Court insists for their presence, and the husband of the de facto complainant i.e. A1 is directed to appear before the trial Court on behalf of the other petitioners on all hearing dates and the petitioners shall be properly represented through their counsel before the trial Court.

¶8

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶9

______________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶10

February 26, 2016. KTL

Ponnula Venkata Subbamma v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnula Venkata Subbamma v. The State of Ap.

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

Suraiah Anwar Vs Dr Arifuddin Ahmed

C.Veerendranath , C. Amar Dharma Veerendranath Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

D.Venkatappa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Shaik Nurul Hussain Vs The Telangana State

E.Chandramohan Vs The State of Telnagana.,rep.,Pp