Allowed

Mumtaz Ahamed and 5 Others v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC13 Aug 2018CRLP/8189/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act registered against the petitioners. The court held this warranted after the de facto complainant voluntarily withdrew the case and expressed no grievance. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions in the criminal petition were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 394 of 2009 against the petitioners were quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in the criminal petition were disposed of.

Mumtaz Ahamed and 5 Others Vs the State of A.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8189 OF 2011

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who

¶4

are A-2 to A-5, A-8 and A-9 before the Court below seeking quash

¶5

of the Proceedings in Crime No.257 of 2007, which is registered

¶6

on 26/11/2007 for the offences under secti8on 498-A of I.P.C. and

¶7

section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

The petitioners are the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and

¶9

brothers-in-law of the defacto complainant.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶11

learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶12

The counsel for the petitioners files a copy of the

¶13

judgment in C.C.No. 394 of 2009 which is passed in the case

¶14

which was split up against A-1 to A-4. The Court in the said

¶15

judgment records that PW-1, who is the defacto complainant

¶16

herein already married one person by name; Mr. Mahesh and she

¶17

¶18

has also obtained divorce from A-1. It is also recorded that in her

¶19

evidence she voluntarily withdrew the case and expressed that she

¶20

has no grievance against the accused. The reason for the case being

¶21

still pending against these petitioners is that in this criminal petition

¶22

stay was granted by this Court. Hence, in view of the above, this

¶23

Court opines that the Proceedings in C.C.No.394 of 2009 on the

¶24

file of the Court of XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶25

Hyderabad against the petitioners/A-2 to A-5, A-8 and A9 be and

¶26

are hereby quashed.

¶27

Proceedings in C.C.Nol. 394 of 2009 on the file of the Court of

¶28

XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against

¶29

the petitioners/A-2 to A-5, A-8 and A9 are hereby quashed.

¶30

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in this

¶31

criminal petition shall stand disposed of.

¶32

13-08-2018 I s L

¶33

¶34

SMT.JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8189 OF 2011

¶36

[ A L L O W E D ]

¶37

Circulation No. Date: 13-08-2018 Court Master : I s L

Mumtaz Ahamed and 5 Others v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz Ahamed and 5 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mallagundla Nagarjuna and 2 Ors.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mallagundla Nagarjuna and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Easam Srinu and 2 Ors.

M. Sarada, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

M/S G a Graphics Vs Mrs. Balaji

Karuturi Kishore Babu Vs State of Ap.