Dismissed

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC11 Nov 2021CRLP/273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 260 of 2018. The Court held there were no circumstances warranting the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings was dismissed with costs.

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, Vs The Station House Officer — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} "'-"-rnut"i-,ff t'^t-"sxlB',.0r",RIi3IE"t*

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

TH^{E HONOURABLE DR' JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} F2 1 C N T N

¶5

""Y""i*r?rtr,9,lf tlfl 'f

¶6

,l*!;t:,',t.',ff tl.'1,:r'a:##:,h',i:[X$:*Y;#'""3':'".:'.:;.",,.""["SJ$;&'PVf&LI,l1ru;U::,J:1,::

¶7

AND

¶8

,l?st li:;iiii."3,['[:'i,i::3$?:ff^[fl ,siJd$i:l{ii!.J;i,:sll,'l:

¶9

lyderabad^' 3'1':fi^l,'

¶10

2:rtg?:^,.:;l[!io-*"ol33i":;'3:i:,:''-'#'.''#i':'f#id'?f;

¶11

fiino'i'"n'l6icnatoisttict'RESPoNDENT/DEFAcro-coMPLAINANTS

¶12

petition under secrion^{482 or cr P c pravins that} I Lt."ffiT.tjitt...p':Tli: ,",n" ["".J'."iJil^{ot ir.ounotof crimrnalPetitilt;]ltX} %r";"on^{'til-iirl ot vr} ro call ror^{169 ls6ords'"''t'i!,} J?.,i'.| c"ri"r""u:rj..Jquashthe same, I,4etropolitan^{I'4agistrate'Medc}

¶13

l.A NO:^{'loF 20 19}

¶14

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in.the clrcumstances staled} in. the Memorandum^{oi e rouna"sii ciiminat'peiitidn} 'the^{HighCourt maybe pleased} to stay all further^{proceeding.in-ci ltlo zo0 of 2018 on the file of Vl l\iletropolitan} ita"gi.irri". tt/"achal^{Districtl Cyberabad' including appearanceof the petitioners'} pen-ding disposal of the^{aboveCriminal Petition'}

¶15

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,upon perusingthe lrrlemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof Sri K NISCHALA} ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerand the Asrsislant Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent No1.

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

T {E HoN'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This _fl m ina I Petition, under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal prc :edure, 7973, is filed by the.petitioners/A2 & 43 seeking to quash th( proceedings a gainst them in C.C.No.260 of 2018 on the File of Vl I letropolitan Magistrate, lvledchal District, Cyberabad, ( a risin g out )f Crime No.3g6 of ZO17 of Jeedimefla Pclice Station, Medchai). 2 Heard t re learned counsel for petitioners /A2 & A3, the iearned Assistant^pub c prosecu to r representing the respondent No.1/State andperusedIerecord.

¶20

Learned :ounsel for the petitioners/A2 & 43 would submit that the petitioners 42 & A3 have nothing to do with the offences alleged against them. Futher, the petitioners/A2 & A3, who are the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant, are old-aged^persons. Without there being any material, the^{subject FIR was issued} against the f 3titioners/A2 & A3 for^{the alleged offences and} ultimately,^{pra,ed to allowthe criminal petitionas prayedfor.}

¶21

On the other^{hand, learned Assistant PublicProsecutor} opposed the rt ief^{sought by the petitioners/A2& A3}

¶22

As seen 'rom the^{subjectreport,dated 28 04 2017, there are} specific and^{grave allegations against the petitioners/A2 & A3 which} constitute the llleged^{offences. In these circumstances, it cannotbe} said that conl^{nuation of proceedings against the petitlonersinZa} A3 in the subj:ct^{C.C.No.260of 2018 ls an abuse of process of law'}

¶23

¶24

Here, it^{is pertinent to state that the inherent jurisdictionof} the Hlgh^{Court underSection482 of cr'P C can be exercised to} quash proceedings^{in a proper case'either to preventthe abuse of} the^{processof any Court or otherwise to securethe endsof justice'} In the^{instant case, none of the circumstancesmentioned above do} exist for^{quashing the proceedings againstthe petitioners/A2& A3} in the^{subject case by exercisingthe inherent jurisdiction of this} Court under^{Section 482 of Cr'P'C'}

¶25

There are^no iustifiable^{reasonsto accede the requestof the} 7, petitioners/A2^{& 43 The criminal petition!s devoidof merit and is} liable to^{be dismissed'}

¶26

I Accordingly,^{thls Criminal Petition ls dismissed'} Miscellaneous Petitions'^{ifanY, Pendingin this Criminal}

¶27

Petitlon, shall^standclosed' SD/.T.JAY ASREE ASSIsrANHcrSTRAR //TRUE^COPYi/ SECTION^O FFICER

¶28

To, 1. The Vl^{tvletropolitan Magistrate MedchalDistrict' Cyberabad}

¶29

The^{Station HouseOfficer' JeedimetlaPoliceStation' Medchal'}

¶30

3 Two CCs to^{Assistant Public Prosecutor'High Court for theStateof Telangana'}

¶31

at HYderabad [OUT]

¶32

One^{CC to SRl.K NTSCHALAAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶33

Two CD^Copies

¶34

One SPare^CoPY

CDL MMA

HIGH COUIIT

DATED:11t, 1t2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.27:i of 2O1g

DISMISSING T,IE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶42

t 1 Bofr

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, v. The Station House Officer

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

Md. Jawed Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Mohdlliyas Bin Habeeb and another Vs Miss. Najma Begum and another

Sri. Sateesh Perichala Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rohith Thumma and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt. I.Ramadevi Vs Sunil Bajaj

Syed. Sana Vs The State of Telangana