Allowed

Pancherpula Prabakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Sept 2018CRLP/7257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No. 7257 of 2018, the Court, on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the concerned Court to follow the guidelines laid down in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar. The order did not touch the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The Court concerned is directed to follow the guidelines prescribed in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.

Pancherpula Prabakar Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7257 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing for sometime, requested this Court to direct the Court concerned to follow the guidelines formulated by this Court in “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.¹ ”

¶6

In “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. ” (referred supra) 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 requires 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 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

¶10

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

¶11

MSM,J CrlP_7257_2018

¶12

¶13

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.”

¶14

Acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners and without touching the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court concerned to follow the guidelines prescribed in “ Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. ” (referred supra). Accordingly, the Court concerned 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).

¶15

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

27.09.2018 Ksp

Pancherpula Prabakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pancherpula Prabakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Vadde Naasaraiah and Another Vs the State of Telangana Rep Spl Pp for Acb

Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani and 8 Others Vs the State of Telangana and 3 Others

Manepalli Mohan Rao,Kithani Vs the State of Ap.

N.Radhika Vs T.B.Reddy , Konda Reddy and S of a.P., Rep by P.P and 3 Others

Thummala Venkata Kutumba Rao Vs State of Ap.

Sri v.Venkateshwara Rao, Hyd., and Anr., Vs Cbi, Rep. by Spl.Pp., High Court of A.P.