Dismissed

Bottu Amrutha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021CRLP/9868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and DV Act. Finding no specific allegations against the petitioners, the Court dispensed with their personal appearance while maintaining the trial against Accused No. 1.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of dispensing with the presence of petitioners; proceedings against Accused No. 1 continue.

Bottu Amrutha Vs State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

IN THE HIGH COURT FC

E oF rELANGANA

^r,l$rH.^Blt

WEDNESDAY, THE TWEN ,*o ru o r!-oilJ ffi STr? i+y oFEDEcE MB ER

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

CRIMINAL pETtTtON NO: 9868 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

¶10

2 !!,:HryllT,i,^{H,",fiffiJ,;,6;j,L,l3"1",ff!.;oi:i;"!:ffiowre, caste Bc} E f f,fl 1,.ff s e ]iv ire, c a ste I ff i'f ,', : #J"rh e5#T;,flffii Jf

¶11

3 ^Xn^{e, m, n:l} c a s t e B c

¶12

4 fi i3|'.:i'5y 3i:i[,[j?,ii,fl :;: ii x i,: "13i._xi ;:a:,wt,,yn: c a s r e B c u d i ra^j,

¶13

H,XY B{ihff 5 i,Yfl ,"# Sfl 1 CI,g:i,f dj,il: -:5: r',[ Jffi ^.4

¶14

AND

¶15

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 to 5

¶16

State of Telangana, rep. by public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶17

Bottu Vijaya Kumari, w/o Naresh, Aged 35 years, occ. House wife, caste. BC VJ,illft t#,i;fl ?,?f; :,J,|6sffi isij#[?,,*uyf Ul"X",:"l",Tdi"i';Iir)1i""

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO GOMPLAINANT

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to Quash the Proceedings initiated against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in c.c.No.65 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First crass Magistrate At randur for the offence Under Sec. 49S-(A) l.p.C. and Sec 3 and 4 of Dp Act_1961.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 021

¶21

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings incruding personar appearance of the Petitio ners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 in c.c. No. 65 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri palle Rajashekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN}

¶25

CRIMI NAL^{PETITION No.986A of2O2L}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal^{Petition isfiled under Section482} Cr.P.C., to quash the^{proceedings inC'C'No'65 of2OL9} pending on the file of the Addl.^{Judicial Magistrate of First} Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District.^{The petitioners herein are} accused Nos.2 to 5 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dor,",ry Prohibition Act.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the Relord. With their consent this Criminal Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage.

¶29

Petitioner No.1 is mother, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married sisters and petitioner No.4 is brother of A-1. perusal of the charge sheet in the said Calendar Case would reveal that pima facie there are no allegations much less specific allegations against the petitioners herein and the allegations are general in nature. There are several triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial. The disputes between accused No.1 and 2"d respondent are matrimonial disputes. The punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners herein is below 7 years .

¶30

¶31

Considering the said facts, this Crimina,l petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners herein / A-2 to A_5 only in C.C.No.65 of 2Olgpending on the file of the Addl. Judiciai Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District. However, they shall appear before the court below as and when their presence is required. It is made clear that the proceedings against accused No.1 shall go on.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed.

¶33

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// _,/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur, R.R. District.

¶38

One CC to Sri Palle Rajashekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

One Spare^CoPY gbr

¶42

HIGH^COURT

¶43

DATED:^2211212021

¶44

I HESra , i--
<.
1
2I ,!{11 2fl22

¶45

ORDER

¶46

GRL.P.No.9868 ot 2021

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶48

Bottu Amrutha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bottu Amrutha 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

Smt Vongala Jayalaxmi Devi Reddy , Jaya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Smt. J. Geethalaxmi Vs State of Telangana

S.Narsimha Reddy Vs S.Jyothi

P.Anji Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Thokala Balavardhan and 3 others Vs Smt. Depalli Pravalika and another

Bandla Jaganmohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana