Dismissed

Vadapalli Madhu Varma v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jun 2019CRLP/2900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge held that allegations against petitioners make out offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Petition to quash FIR dismissed; Criminal Petition disposed; no coercive steps till investigation completion subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

No coercive steps against A.2 to A.4 till investigation; Bail for A.1 considered if surrenders.

Vadapalli Madhu Varma Vs State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2900 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.24 of 2019 of Palakeedu Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondentState and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and they are falsely implicated in this case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners do not attract the alleged offences and ultimately prayed to allow the petition.

¶7

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State opposed to quash the said proceedings and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶8

The First Information Report reveals that at the time of marriage between A.1 and the de facto complainant, parents of the de facto complainant have given dowry and other valuables. Both of them lived happily for some time and blessed with a baby boy. Later, A.1 addicted to bad vices and at the instance of A.2 to A.4, harassed the de facto complainant mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. Hence, it cannot be said that no cognizable

¶9

¶10

offences are made out against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. Therefore, I do not find any cogent reason to quash the FIR.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, till completion of investigation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners/A.2 to A.4. However, if the petitioner No.1/A.1 surrenders before the Court concerned, his bail application can be considered and dispose of the same on the same day.

¶12

With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed

¶13

of.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal
petition shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
17.06.2019
ssp

Vadapalli Madhu Varma v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadapalli Madhu Varma v. 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

Dornala Satya Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

G. Venugopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Potla Harish Vs The State of Telangana

Mallu Tataji Vs The State of Telangana

Gurram Madhusudhan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Veleti Bhushanam Vs The State of Telangana