Disposed

Venila Singavarapu v. Thokala Keerthi Priyadarshini

Telangana HC27 Feb 2017CRLP/1540/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash Domestic Violence proceedings. It held that the petitions were not maintainable at that stage for quashment but dispensed with the personal appearance of specific respondents (mother-in-law, sister-in-law, strangers) while allowing them to appear when directed by the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Dispensed with the personal presence of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the underlying D.V.C. during trial; they must appear when directed by the Magistrate.

Venila Singavarapu Vs Thokala Keerthi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1539 AND 1540 OF 2017

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

These Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District.

¶4

Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in the former petition, arraigned as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the D.V.C., are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.1 – de facto complainant, whereas petitioner No.4 in the former petition and the petitioner in the latter petition, arraigned as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the D.V.C., are strangers.

¶5

Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao and Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would plead innocence and false implication of the petitioners, besides pleading that on the complaint given by respondent No.1, P.R.C.No.16 of 2016 was registered on the file of very same Court, where the D.V.C. is pending, and she has also filed M.C.No.32 of 2016 on the file of very same Court and, therefore, seek to quash the proceedings in the D.V.C.

¶6

It is not a case for quashment at this stage, as there is no concrete material to quash the proceedings, but, however, learned counsel for the petitioners would confine the request for dispensing

¶7

¶8

with the presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the former petition viz., Smt. Thokala Prameela, Smt. Sari Anitha and Sri Borugadda Bujangarao @ Vasu, and the petitioner in the latter petition viz., Smt. Singavarapu Vennela, for the reason, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.1, whereas petitioner No.4 in the former petition and the petitioner in the latter petition are strangers to the proceedings.

¶9

Hence, the presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the former petition, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 in the D.V.C., and the petitioner in the latter petition, who is respondent No.4 in the D.V.C., is dispensed with during pendency of the proceedings, but, however, they shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when directed by him. Petitioner No.1 in the former petition, who is respondent No.1 in the D.V.C., shall appear, on his behalf and also on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the D.V.C., before the learned Magistrate during trial.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶11

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶12

February 27, 2017. MD

Venila Singavarapu v. Thokala Keerthi Priyadarshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venila Singavarapu v. Thokala Keerthi Priyadarshini

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

Levaku Sumathi Vs the State of A.P.

Allena Siva Das, Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Ashok Kumar Chowdary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Senapathi Ramesh, Vs The State of A.P

Dasari Rajesh Vs Kunche Anujna

Tummala Jitendra Vs The State A.P