Dismissed

Smt. D.a.Deepa v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022CRLA/1219/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal of her husband and in-laws for Dowry Prohibition and cruelty charges. The Court held the appeal against conviction for cruelty was maintainable but dismissed it due to lack of evidence, noting the complainant's prior fight for restitution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAEAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESEN'T

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTiTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL AP PEAL NO: 1219 0F 2008

¶6

Petition under section 37g (5) of code of criminar procedure aggrieved by the Judgment dated. 24.06-2008 made in c.c.No.62 of 2002 on the fire of the court of the Xrrr Additionar chief tvetroporitan l,4agistrate, (Mahira court) at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. D.A.Deepa, W/o Srinivas, aged 28 years, Rl/o H.No.16_183, Old lVirjalguda, It/alkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District ."

¶9

...APPELLANT/COM P LAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep- by flre pubric prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶12

K.Srinivasa Rao,, S/o K.Venkat Rao, aged about 41 years, Occ: Court Master in High Court of A.p. Rt/o H.No.19-12-.1"64/3, Road No.Z,.losfri Ntqan W;J" r I rq,sr ' rrue(

¶13

Venkatapuram, Venkatapuram, Alwal, Ranga n"OaV O,&ii"t .

¶14

K.Venkat Rao.aoed 60 vears, Occ: Retd. from Military Rl/o H.No..l9_12_i 64/3, "

¶15

Road No.7. Jostii Naoai, w"rt-v"ntii"p.iiJ'n,'v""it;trp;rrr,lh"ri, R;;ii;' Reddy District .

¶16

Kalavathi,, Wo K.Venkat. Rao,aged 60 years, Rl/o H.No.19_j 2_16413, Road No..7, Joshi Nagar, West Venkailpurani, Venkatapu;rm, nf*"f , n"ng; iiJJaV District .

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appeilant : SRI B. p. RAJU

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : pUBLtC PROSECUTOR

¶20

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : None appeared

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1219 OF 2OOa

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

The defacto complainant filed the present appeal against ReSpondents 2 to 4/ Accused 1 to 3, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Respondents 3 and 4 under Section 498-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 24.06.2008 in CC No.62 of 2OO2 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metr-opolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (for short, the 'Magistrate').

¶26

The appeal is of the year 2OOB and the complaint is of the year 24.Al.2OOO registered by CID, Hyderabad. Though the appeal was listed on earlier occasions, none appeared for the appellant as seen from the proceeding sheet, as such the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is heard and appeal is being disposed off.

¶27

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lirstly submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable for the reason of the judgment being delivered XIII Additional Chief L{etropolitan Magistrate and the appeal lies to the Sessions . < -/,,

¶28

¶29

Court under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C u,as inserted by the Act No.S of 2OO9 with effect from 3I.12.2OO9 as such the amendment is not applicable. This appeal which is pending for the past 14 years is disposed off on merits.

¶30

As seen from the judgment, the 2"d respondent/A1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a pedod of six months. The respondents 2 to 4lA1 to A3 were found not guilty for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the 3.d and 4th respondents lA2 and A3 are also not found guilty for the oflence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶31

In the said case, since the appeal against conviction under Section 498-A of IPC lies to the Sessions Court, the 2"d respondent/Al must have filed appeal before the Sessions Court. In the said circumstances, any grievance against the 2^d appellant, should have been made before the concerned Sessions Court and not before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal against 2"d appellant/A1 is dismissed. ..-

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein who is tL-e defacto complainant married 2.d respondent/A1 on 25.04.1999 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.80,0OOl-, 15 tulas of gold, yamaha motor cycle and further worth Rs.34,0O0/, to 2"d respondent/A1" Further, the marriage expenses spent was around Rs"4.00 lakhs. For the reason of demand of additional dowry, Respondents 2 to 4 treated the defacto complainant with cruelty. Ttie defacto complainant filed Op No.88 of 200 1 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against 2nd respondent/Al, who in turn liled counter seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said Op for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed granting divorce and this Court by order dated 08.04.2006 allowed restitution of conjugal rights and set aside the decree of divorce.

¶36

As far as the respondents 3 and 4 / A2 and A'3 are concerned, Iearned Magistrate has found that all allegations specifically were made against A1 only regarding additional dowry which was given at the time of marriage. p.W. t has made vague and bald allegations against respondents 3 ald 4 /A2 and ,43, for which reason, the learnecl Magistrate

acquitted the respondents 3 and a/A2 and .A3, who are Parents of 2"d respondent/A I .

¶41

As seen from the conduct of the appellant, she wanted to live with her husband as such fought the conjugal rights petition for six yea's' It is not normal if the wife was treated with cruelt-v by husband and in_laws. The appeai now being heard is to decide whether aly ground is made out against respondents 3 and 4 /A2 and A3 or not. As the learned Magistrate has found that there are or-rly bald and vague allegations against these appellalts, it cannot be said that an} case is made olrt for reversing the judgment of acquittal.

¶42

In cases of acquittal uniess there are compelling reasons, the order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminai appeal is dismissed against respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3. As a sequel thereto, mrscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin 6 shall stalds closed.

¶43

sD53,i'icHffg+EiX' //,RUE copytt ro, .^*- --;: :,ly:::,1ff1''". ]^$}gg}ffi::,r ,Ory

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED: 0710712022

¶46

1H
(
t-
?
I ,,.) 2 3 AUB ?$12
J::
;_;::1::.11,

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

CRL.A.No.1219 of 2008

¶49

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶50

I F

Smt. D.a.Deepa v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D.a.Deepa v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

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

Chimala Jangaiah Yadav and 2 others Vs Mancharla Gopal and another

Vanthala Laiban Vs The State of Telangana

Rahul Godse Vs the State of Telangana

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, Vs State through Sho.,, of P.S.

Ganta Narender Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Brahmandlapally , Brahmanapally Bixapathi Vs The State of Telangana