Allowed

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC10 Oct 2018CRLP/7200/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners (A5 to A7) under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the complainant resides separately from her husband due to a prior divorce decree unchallenged by her, the allegations in the complaint are prima facie false, and continuance would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Cr.No.43 of 2013 against the petitioners are quashed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.7 2 0 0 of 2 0 1 3

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is filed for quash of the proceedings in Cr.No.43 of 2013, against the petitioners, who are A5 to A7, on the file of the Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District. The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the second respondent. None appears for the second respondent in spite of notice.

¶6

The complaint shows that some vague allegations are made against the petitioners stating that the petitioners used to harass the complainant for not working in the house. The first petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant, the second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is the husband of another sister-in-law of the complainant.

¶7

Apart from the above, the counsel for the petitioners submits that an ex parte decree of divorce was granted in favour of the husband of the complainant by way of orders in O.S.No.1195 of 2010 dated 12.07.2011 and the complainant did not question the said order and suppressing the said fact, she filed this complainant in the year 2013.

¶8

¶9

The fact remains that the complainant has been residing separately from her husband since 12.07.2011, which is the date of divorce decree. Hence, in such circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie , appear to be false. In view of the above, the continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would only be abuse of process of law.

¶10

In the light of the above, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.43 of 2013, against the petitioners, who are A5 to A7, on the file of the Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

__________ T. RAJANI, J

¶12

October 10, 2018
DSK

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vega Shailaja and 2 Others v. the State of A.P. and Another

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

Baddepudi Bhanu Prakash Reddy Vs Andalamala Kanakamma and Anothers

K.v.Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Sri G.Narayan Rao, Guntur Dt., Vs State of Ap., Pp., High Court.

Mahesh Kumar Nirwan Vs the State of Ap., and Another

Bojja Sreenivasulu and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

C.Raghuram Prasad, Visakhaptnam., Vs Gic Housing Finance Ltd., Mubai and Anr, Rep Pp.