Dismissed

Bhukya Venkateswara Rao and 5 Others v. State of a.P,Rep.by Pp Hc of a.P,Hyd and Another

Telangana HC25 Oct 2018CRLP/10655/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings involving allegations of torture and demand for divorce. The court held that despite missing names, the allegations were specific enough, and the petition was dismissed. Arrest direction was modified to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; police directed not to arrest petitioners without following Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Bhukya Venkateswara Rao and 5 Others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10655 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the Petitioners/A-2 to A-7 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.89 of 2011 of Chatrai Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 420 and 406 R/w.34 of I.P.C.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1^st respondent – State. None appears for the 2^nd respondent – de-facto complainant, in spite of service of notice.

¶6

The allegations in the complaint are specific against all the accused; though the names of the accused were not mentioned, it is mentioned that after the panchayat was held, and that after an agreement was arrived at, the accused failed to fulfill the agreement and, on 01.07.2011, all the accused along with four un-known persons came to the house of the complainant’s parents and trespassed into the house and demanded the complainant to sign on divorce papers; they also beat the complainant, indiscriminately, when she refused to sign on the divorce papers.

¶7

Hence, these being the allegations, it cannot be said that the lapse of not mentioning the names of the petitioners would affect the case and would entitle the petitioners for quashment of all proceedings against them.

¶8

Hence, in view of the nature of allegations, this Court opines that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Police concerned are directed not to arrest the petitioners without following Section 41-A of Cr.P.C..

¶10

TR,J Crl.P. No.10655 of 2011

¶11

¶12

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Petition shall

¶13

stand dismissed.

¶14

Date: 25.10.2018. Dsh

¶15

TR,J Crl.P. No.10655 of 2011

¶16

¶17

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶18

165

¶19

30102018

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10655 OF 2011

¶21

Date. 25.10.2018

¶22

DSH

Bhukya Venkateswara Rao and 5 Others v. State of a.P,Rep.by Pp Hc of a.P,Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhukya Venkateswara Rao and 5 Others v. State of a.P,Rep.by Pp Hc of a.P,Hyd and Another

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

Smt. Tayyaba Begum, Kalikabar, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs the State of a.P., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

B.Srikanth, Vs State of A.P.

B.Parthasarathi Naidu, Vs B.Latha, and the State of a.P., Rep by Its Pp. and 2 Others

Sanagavarapu Pavan Kumar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Nandelli Chandrasekhar (A2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddeneni Hari Babu, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another