Partly allowed

Dr. Yallamanchili Radha Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jul 2018WP/22456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three writ petitions filed against notices issued under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. in a dowry and cruelty case. The High Court refused to act on the notices, holding they were issued in violation of Apex Court guidelines requiring prior referral to the District Legal Services Committee, and adjourned the matter pending that report.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Writ petitions disposed of to not give effect to Section 41 A Cr.P.C. notices pending report from District Legal Services Committee; petitioners to cooperate with investigation.

Dr. Yallamanchili Radha Krishna Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22421, 22456 and 22475 OF 2018

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

Since the subject matter of all these writ petitions is one and the same, all these writ petitions are head together and disposed of by this common order.

¶4

The case of the petitioners is that basing on the complaint of the 5^th respondent against the petitioners a case in Crime No.337/2018 was filed under Sections 498-A, 384, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; and that the petitioners also filed criminal petition No.6023/2018 before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR No.337/2018 and the same is disposed of by this Court on 14.06.2018, directing the police to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh [2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 393 (SC)]. Since the respondents have not followed the said directions and have straightaway issued notices under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. in violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, present writ petition is filed.

¶5

Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the respondents are bound to refer the matter to the District Legal Services Committee before taking any steps for issuance of process of arrest to the petitioners, without following the said procedure, notices under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C were issued on 20.06.2018 to the petitioners and

¶6

¶7

subsequently the matter was referred to District Legal Service Committee, Vijayawada, on 28.06.2018, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Heard learned Government Pleader for Home who submits that the notices issued to the petitioners under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. will not be given effect to, since the matter is referred to the District Legal Services Committee.

¶9

In view of the same the writ petition is disposed of not to give affect to notice issued under Section 41 A until report is received from the District Legal Services Committee. It goes without saying that the petitioners have to cooperate with the investigation. No order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 16.07.2018 t k.

Dr. Yallamanchili Radha Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Yallamanchili Radha Krishna 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

V Satya Sudhakar Vs State of Ap

Boddu Chandrashekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

P Chandramouli Vs State of Ap

Jupally Malla Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Yallamanchili Kamala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Yelamanchili Raj Sekhar, Ms, M.Ch (Ortho) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh