Dismissed

Orusu Anjaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2019CRLP/1808/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings for offences under 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Court rejected plea that marriage was nullity and found allegations substantiated by material evidence. Trial delayed but not dismissed; ordered to expedite. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the subject Calendar Case.

Orusu Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

Cr im in al Pet it ion No.1 8 0 8 of 2 0 1 9

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is fled by the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶5

2 . Heard the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2, who are appearing as partyin-persons, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent State and perused the record.

¶6

3 . It has been contended by the first petitioner/ A.1 that the marriage between him and the de-facto complainant is a nullity. No demand of dowry was made at any point of time. All the allegations against the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2 are false. Further, it is also contended that for the last twenty months or so, trial has not commenced in the subject Calendar Case and ultimately prayed to allow the application.

¶7

4 . As per the material placed on record, there are allegations against both the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2. The marriage in between the first petitioner/ A.1 and the de-facto complainant was performed on 13.11.2011. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ -, seven tulas of gold and utensils worth

¶8

¶9

Rs.1,00,000/ - were given as dowry. Even after getting the same, the victim/ wife of the first petitioner was harassed and tortured physically and mentally to get an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/ - from her parents. There is material to establish the allegations constituting offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2. The trial Court, having examined the whole issue, framed charges for the said offences against the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2. The only course available to the petitioners/ A.1 & A.2 is to proceed with the trial of the case. Delay in commencement of trial is not a ground to quash the proceedings. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the subject Calendar Case. The Criminal petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

5 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶11

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 02^nd April, 2019 Bvv

Orusu Anjaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orusu Anjaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohd Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Muthyam Sambaiah Vs The State of Telangana

R. Partha Saradhi Vs The State Telangana

Thippi Reddy Laxma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pirnapally Padmaiah Vs Smt.Pirnapally Laxmi

Dr. Canchi Hem Raj Vs The State of Telangana