Allowed

Govada Raja Gopala Rao and 4 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Telangana HC4 Sept 2018CRLP/8344/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed Criminal Petition seeking quashing of Section 498A IPC proceedings. Court held that since the complainant obtained a divorce order stating she deserted the husband, the subsequent filing was an abuse of process of law intended to harass the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners in Crime No.142 of 2011 and closed miscellaneous applications.

Govada Raja Gopala Rao and 4 Others Vs the State of Ap… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.8 3 4 4 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, by the petitioners, who are A2 to A6, seeking for quash of the proceedings in Crime No.142 of 2011 on the file of Sathupalli Police Station, Khammam District. The offences alleged 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 petitioners are parents-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law, brother-in-law of the de facto complainant. The complaint is filed alleging that all the petitioners belong to a joint family and that the complainant was harassed with demand of Rs.2 lakhs for the purpose of A1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, going to US. The allegations are importantly made against A1. The allegations against petitioners 1 and 2 are that they do not disclose as to where A1 went. Absolutely, there are no allegations made against the other petitioners except mentioning their names.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the marriage was performed in the year 1994 and in the year 2006, divorce was obtained by A1 on the ground of cruelty. He also files copy of the order passed in the said divorce

¶8

¶9

petition, viz., O.P.No12 of 2006 dated 09.06.2006. The de facto complainant did not contest the said matter and it was an ex parte order. The order shows that the de facto complainant deserted A1.

¶10

In view of the above, this court opines that the complaint, which was filed in the year 2011, was only filed to some how harass the petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners, who are A2 to A6, in Crime No.142 of 2011 on the file of Sathupalli Police Station, Khammam District, are hereby quashed.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

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

¶15

September 4, 2018 LMV

Govada Raja Gopala Rao and 4 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govada Raja Gopala Rao and 4 Others v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

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

Sri K.Manikya Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valluri Rami Reddy, Kadapa District and 10 Others Vs the Sho, Orddatyr III Town Ps., Kadapa Dist, Rep. by Pp.,Hyd

Raja Kumari and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

P.Ashwin Kumar Vs State of Ap.

Smt. Thouta Swetha Vs v.Sandeep Kumar and the State of A.P.

P.Ashwin Kumar Vs State of Ap.