Quashed

Chilukuri Dharma Rao and Another v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Telangana HC6 Nov 2018CRLP/12314/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 533 of 2011 against the petitioners (husband and brother-in-law) after finding the complaints bald and frivolous based on previous findings that the alleged disputes were due to in-law interference and that the parties were living together with no dowry demand proven.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 533 of 2011 against the petitioners on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku are quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Chilukuri Dharma Rao and Another Vs the State of A.P… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.1 2 3 1 4 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is filed for quash of the proceedings in C.C.No.533 of 2011, against the petitioners, who are A6 and A7, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. The offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 403, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent. None appears for the second respondent in spite of notice.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioners submits that first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner and that the second petitioner is the sister of A1. He further submits that on the same set of facts the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein, filed DVC.No.4 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by virtue of detailed passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku on 04.12.2015. He also submits that the de facto complainant and A1 are living together. He also submits that the petitioners are not living with the de facto complainant and the allegations levelled against them cannot be believed.

¶7

The order in DVC.No.4 of 2011 is also filed, a perusal of which shows that the Court below recorded that the de facto complainant admitted that there are no disputes with her husband and that he is an innocent person but due to interference of her in-laws the disputes

¶8

¶9

arose between them and they have good terms and marital relationship exists between them. It was also recorded as an undisputed fact that they were living together. The order also shows that the second respondent failed to prove any demand of additional dowry, which was alleged against the petitioners herein. It was also observed that the allegations made against the petitioners are bald in nature. Hence, in view of the above, it can be seen that the present complaint is only a frivolous complaint.

¶10

In the light of the above, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.533 of 2011, against the petitioners, who are A6 and A7, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

__________ T. RAJANI, J

¶12

November 6, 2018 DSK

Chilukuri Dharma Rao and Another v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilukuri Dharma Rao and Another v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp 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

Malim Saleem, Vs H.K. Babu

Koduru Chitti Babu Chowdary Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Veera Venkata Gowri Neelam Vs M/S. Gayathri Projects Ltd. and Anothers

Muddana Appa Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. and Another

Mohammed Syfuddinshareef and 2 Others Vs Mohd.Kauser Jaha and Another

Sri S.Suryanarayana, Ceo, Vs The State of A.P.