Allowed

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC27 Aug 2018CRLP/6549/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Relying on the Supreme Court principle from T. T. Antony (supra), the Court held that the Complainant suppressing the fact of an earlier identical complaint and the accused's acquittal in that case indicates a lack of bona fides and amounts to an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No. 572 of 2006.

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, Vs the State of Ap… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.6 5 4 9 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, by the petitioners, who are A1 to A5 and A9, seeking for quash of the proceedings against them, in C.C.No.572 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498A IPC.

¶5

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

¶6

The counsel for the petitioners submits that there was an earlier complaint filed by the complainant with the very same allegations and that a case was registered for the offence under Section 498A IPC in Crime No.73 of 2006 on the file Vemulapalli Police Station, Nalgonda District, and that the trial was conducted in respect of the said complaint and that the accused, who are the same as in this crime, were acquitted.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners also draws attention of this court to the allegations made in the two complaints. A perusal of the same would show that the allegations that the accused harassed her and that her husband was expressing that he would marry again were already made. Now in the present complaint, she states that A1 married another woman by name

¶8

¶9

Swarnalatha and she did not mention the facts that were made in the earlier complaint in the present complaint and also about the fact of the accused being acquitted in the said case.

¶10

The counsel, in support of his contention that the suppression of the earlier complaint would itself entitle the petitioners for quash of the further proceedings in this case, relies on the order, dated 19.02.2008, passed by this court in Crl.P.No.7256 of 2007, wherein this court, by relying on the judgment of the apex court in T.T.An t on y v. St at eof Ker ala an d ot h er s w it h Dam odar an P. an d ot h er s v. St at e of Ker ala an d St at e of Ker ala an d ot h er s v. Revada Ch an dr asek h ar an d ot h er s¹ held that when the complainant for not valid reasons suppresses the fact of earlier complaint, which indicates lack of bona fides on her part, continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged offences is nothing but abuse of process of law, quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein.

¶11

Hence, in the light of the principle laid down by the apex court supra, the further proceedings against the petitioners in this crime also are liable to be quashed.

¶12

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.572 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda, are quashed.

¶13

1 AIR 2001 SC 2637

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

August 27, 2018 LMV

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

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

Thota Suneel , Venkata Suneel, W.G.Dt and Anr., Vs the State, Sho, Mogalthur Ps., and Anr, Rep Pp.

Ullenga Anil Kumar Vs Ullenga Nirmala Jyothi

Syed Safdar Ali Vs M.A Majeed

Karyampudi Sesha Rao and Anr. Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

Biragoni Dayanand Vs State of Ap. Repby Its Sub Inspector, and Anothers

N.Krishna Reddy, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District Vs Dr.T.Ravi Kumar, Nellore District and Anr. Rep.by Pp.,Hyderabad