Disposed

Shaik Khasim Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC5 Jul 2017WP/38938/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging proceedings in a Domestic Violence Complaint as abuse and for quashing of such proceedings on writ jurisdiction. The interim stay order allowing absence of petitioners was made absolute, with a direction to the trial court to proceed with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dispensing with petitioner presence in trial made absolute; direction to trial court to proceed with trial and dispose at earliest; writ petition disposed.

Shaik Khasim Saheb, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

W.V.M.P.No.150 OF 2016 IN/AND W.P.M.P.No.50181 OF 2015

¶3

AND

¶4

W.P.No.38938 OF 2015

¶5

COMMON ORDER:

¶6

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings in D.V.C.No.03 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District as abuse of process of law, lack of jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Act 43 of 2005 and consequently, to quash the same insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶7

By an order, dated 09.12.2015, in W.P.M.P.No.50181 of 2015, this Court granted stay of appearance of the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. Seeking vacation of the said order, respondent No.2 herein filed W.V.M.P.No.150 of 2016.

¶8

Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners though the matter is listed under the caption “For dismissal”.

¶9

Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that due to the pendency of this writ petition, the trial Court is not proceeding further with the D.V.C. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.1 is over, the husband

¶10

¶11

of respondent No.2 was set ex parte and the evidence, if any, of the petitioners herein has to be adduced.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that he has no objection for making the aforesaid interim order as a final order and also for disposal of the main writ petition.

¶13

In view of the above submissions made, the interim order, dated 09.12.2015, passed in W.P.M.P.No.50181 of 2015 dispensing with the presence of the petitioners herein in the aforesaid D.V.C. is made absolute, but however, they shall appear as and when required by the Court.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in D.V.C.No.03 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District in accordance with law and dispose of the same at the earliest.

¶15

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

Date: 5.7.2017 AMD

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶21

W.V.M.P.No.150 OF 2016 IN/AND

¶22

W.P.M.P.No.50181 OF 2015

¶23

AND W.P.No.38938 OF 2015

¶24

DATE: 5.7.2017

¶25

AMD

Shaik Khasim Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Khasim Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Zaheer Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Puja Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Sri N. Durga Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

V.Vimala Vs E.Venkatamuni

M. Sriramulu, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

N. Laxminarayanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh