Allowed

Dr. Jitendra Ladhania and 2 Others v. Smt. Jaishree Ladhania and Mamta and the State of A.P.

Telangana HC14 Aug 2018CRLP/1646/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash proceedings under Sections 498A IPC. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings based on previous orders where similar allegations were quashed and the parties obtained a divorce citing cruelty.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No.18 of 2010 are quashed.

Dr. Jitendra Ladhania and 2 Others Vs Smt… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.1 6 4 6 of 2 0 1 3

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are respondents 1 to 3, in D.V.C.No.18 of 2010 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2^nd respondent. None appears for the 1^st respondent in spite of notice.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings against the other respondents were quashed by this court, by virtue of the common order, dated 10.10.2012, in Crl.P.Nos.6849, 6453 and 6590 of 2010.

¶7

A perusal of the said order would support the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel, that a divorce was obtained by the 1^st petitioner on the ground of cruelty. In the aforesaid order, this court observed that the first accused, who is the 1^st respondent, obtained divorce from the complainant on the ground of cruelty and that though the said finding is not binding, it would be an important piece of evidence, which can be taken into consideration. It was also observed that the complainant has initiated criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 498A IPC with the same allegations.

¶8

¶9

Hence, in view of the aforesaid observations of this court and the fact that the divorce was granted on the basis of cruelty and also considering the fact that the proceedings against the other petitioners are quashed, this court opines that the allegations made against these petitioners are also false.

¶10

In view of the above, this court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid case would only result in abuse of process of law.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No.18 of 2010 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T. RAJANI , J

¶15

August 14, 2018 LMV

Dr. Jitendra Ladhania and 2 Others v. Smt. Jaishree Ladhania and Mamta and the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jitendra Ladhania and 2 Others v. Smt. Jaishree Ladhania and Mamta and the State of A.P.

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

M. Sarada, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Mumtaz Ahamed and 5 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

M/S G a Graphics Vs Mrs. Balaji

Mohd. Amer (A-3) Vs Smt. Tasleem Begum

Amanaganit, Balaiah Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits Public prosecutor

Kodimala Vishweshwar Vs the State of a.P., through Sho., Rep.P.P., Hyd. and Anr.