Petitioners requested quashing of proceedings in a dowry case. The court dismissed the petition for lack of necessary documents (complaint, 161 statements). Some directions were given regarding time-bound disposal of the main case.
Petition dismissed; Calender Case directed to be disposed expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1277 of 2017
ORDER:
The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners- Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the mother and younger brother of Accused No.1, who is not a party to the present petition, requesting to quash the proceedings in Calender Case No.235 of 2014 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioners along with Accused No.1 alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In fact, only the copy of the charge sheet is filed. Neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are filed by the petitioners, though, they seek quashing of the proceedings in the Calender Case. On this short ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Even otherwise, a look at the charge sheet clearly reflects the overt acts of Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the petitioners herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, seeks to exempt the presence of petitioner No.1 during the trial of the Calender Case, and
2
thereafter seeks at least a direction be given to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the Calender Case by fixing time line.
None of the requests of learned counsel for the petitioners can be acceded to, as nothing is placed before this Court to show that petitioner No.1 is really disabled to move or attend the Court. Concerning direction sought to be given to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the Calender Case within a fixed time period, certainly, such a direction cannot be given without knowing the volume of the cases pending on the file of the learned Magistrate. Even otherwise, keeping in view that the Calender Case relates to the year 2014, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the Calender Case as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in the present petition, stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
15.02.2017 v v
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Accused No.2
Accused No.3
A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
