Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of proceedings in an FIR registered for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was dismissed as infructuous because the Public Prosecutor filed a charge sheet.
Criminal Petition No.6317 of 2011 dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6317 OF 2011
ORDER :
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seek to quash the proceedings in FIR No.165 of 2011 of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, which was registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
When the matter came up for hearing, learned Public Prosecutor produced the letter, dated 18.01.2018 of Sub-Inspector of Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, and submitted that in this case investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 10.02.2012 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, and therefore, the petition which is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.165 of 2011 has become infructuous and hence the same may be dismissed.
No representation for learned counsel for petitioner.
In view of the above submission of learned Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as Infructuous.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
08.06.2018 pln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash FIR proceedings is maintainable after the charge sheet has been filed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
State
U.Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
