Allowed

Md.Easaz Beg v. Md.Kowshar Saheb

Telangana HC4 Dec 2018CRLP/2974/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that without specific reasons for cognizance and evidence of false implication, further proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District, were quashed.

Md.Easaz Beg Vs Md.Kowshar Saheb — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TON No.2 9 7 4 OF 2 0 1 3

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are A1 to A3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A r/ w 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶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 reports that the 1^st petitioner is no more and hence, no further orders need be passed. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, the counsel submits that their names were deleted in the charge sheet, against which protest petition was filed and by virtue of the order, dated 24.08.2012, passed in CRF No.2228 of 2011 the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, took cognizance of the case after observing that prima facie material was found against the petitioners. But the counsel for the petitioners submits that the order does not reflect any reasons for taking cognizance, except stating that prima facie material was found.

¶7

The counsel further submits that in the statements of the independent witnesses recorded by the police, they categorically stated that the de facto complainant informed

¶8

¶9

them that she is implicating these petitioners only in order to teach a lesson to A1. No statements were recorded while taking cognizance on the protest petition.

¶10

Hence, in view of the above, when the statements of the witnesses are to the effect that the petitioners were falsely implicated only in order to teach a lesson to A1, there cannot be any reason for the court to take cognizance of the case against the petitioners without assigning any reasons. Moreover, the complaint itself shows that the name of the third petitioner is very casually mentioned and that she did not have any intention to include her in the first instance.

¶11

Hence, in view of the above, this court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

¶12

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District, are hereby quashed.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶14

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

¶15

December 4, 2018 LMV

Md.Easaz Beg v. Md.Kowshar Saheb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Easaz Beg v. Md.Kowshar Saheb

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

T.Dhananjayulu, Chittoor District and 7 Others Vs State, Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

G.Hari Karishna Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad and Anr.

Syed Nazeem Hussain Vs The State ,Through Public Prosecutor

Chundi Krishna Reddy,A3 Vs Vangavaragu Balakrishna Reddy

Bandi Nityananada Reddy Vs Sandanam Ashok Kumar