Disposed

Syed Suheel Farooq , Mohd. Suheel Farooq, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2018CRLP/3904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of domestic violence proceedings. The Court directed the Magistrate to adhere to guidelines laid down in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar, specifically allowing ex parte proceedings and not insisting on party appearances unless necessary, given the civil nature of domestic violence remedies.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to Magistrate to adhere to guidelines of Giduthuri Kesari Kumar regarding ex parte proceedings and not insisting on party appearance.

Syed Suheel Farooq , Mohd. Suheel Farooq, Vs The State… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3904 of 2018

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.82 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, against petitioners.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State.

¶5

The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioners never committed any domestic violence against the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

In “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.¹ ” this Court laid down certain guidelines to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. Case in paragraph 14, which are as follows:

¶7

“14) To sum up the findings:

¶8

i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

¶9

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any

¶10

1 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)

¶11

¶12

domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.”

¶13

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, to follow the guidelines prescribed in “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. ” (referred supra).

¶14

In view of the above, the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, is directed to adhere to the guidelines formulated by this Court in “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. ” (referred supra) and shall not insist the appearance of the petitioners, except on the dates when their personal appearance is required.

¶15

With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶17

___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶18

14.08.2018 kvrm

Syed Suheel Farooq , Mohd. Suheel Farooq, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Suheel Farooq , Mohd. Suheel Farooq, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mudavath Kranthi Kumar Vs the State of Telangana

K. Nageswara Rao, Secbad Vs Spl. P.P. for Cbi, Hyd

Talla Chaithanya, Vs The State of Telangana

Bonala Raju Vs State of Ap

Gudimetla Sri Ram Reddy, E.G.Dist. Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another.

Karnati Ravi Vs Smt.K.Vkavitha and 2 others