Dismissed

Madadi Mounika Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/6041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 494 IPC. The court held that prima facie allegations required trial, previous sanction absence was not fatal, and extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to quash the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 494 IPC was dismissed for want of merits.

Madadi Mounika Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NOi 6041 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Section 482 of Cr^p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash Crime No. 412 ol 2020 of PS Hanumakonda in C.C. No. 43012022 On the file of the ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate At Hanumakonda.

¶8

Between

¶9

Madadi Mounika Reddy, D/ o. Gopal Reddy, Occ. Private Employee,^{Aged about} 28 Years R/o. H No. 2-2-14612, Sadhana Enclave, Naimnagar^Hanumakonda' Warangal Urban District Presently Residing at 155^{TUPELOTRAILFRANK} FORT,-KY - 40601 Rep by her GPA^{HoldeiHer NaturalfatherMadedrGopal} Reddv S/o. Late Moh'an^'Reddy. R/o. H^{No. 2-2-14612,Sadhana Enclave} Naimnagar Hanumakonda, Warangal^{Urban District}

¶10

...PETITIONEFYACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

'l . The State of Telan s ana and another,^{Rep. by its PublicProsecutor'High} Court at^HYderaba d

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

2 PunnamSudheer,S/o,ThirupathiReddy'.Aged^about36Years' occ: Private^{Employeewo ri 'i'r-o'-s-io-so iiii uolzo2 LahartApartments'} Xl-.ilr.priinJ"t]mixonoa^{warangalUrban District}

¶15

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶16

l.A. NO:^{1 OF 2022}

¶17

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated^{in the Memorandu:'nof Grounds of CriminalPetition' the High Courtmay} be^{pleased to grantst'y nf att turther proceedings' in CrimeNo 412 of 2020 of}

¶18

--=,.-

¶19

PS Hanumakonda in C.C. No. 43012022 On the file of the ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate At Hanmakonda, pending disposal of the main Crl. Petition

¶20

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

¶21

The Court made the following: OROER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKI'R^SUMALATH.A

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O41 of^2O22

¶25

ORDER,

¶26

Seeking to quash the^{proceedings that are pending} against the petitioner^{in C.C'No'43Oof 2022 on the file of} the Court of II Additional^{Judicial First ClassMagistrate,} Hanumakonda,^{the present criminal petition is fiied'}

¶27

Heard the submission^{of learned counsel for the} petitioner as well as^{learned Assistant PublicProsecutor'} who is representing^{respondent No' 1'}

¶28

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitsthat the} petitioner has^{not committed any offencewhatsoever'} much less^{the offencepunishableunder Section 494 l'P'C'} andtheCourt,withoutrecognisingthefactthatthe divorce^{from the second} petitioner^{obtainedcustoma4r} of the^offence Punishable respondent,^{took cognisance} . and^{therefore,the proceedingsare} under^{Section 494 l'P'C} 1iable^{to be quashed'} Assistant^{PublicProsecutor} 4. Per^{contra, learned} contends^{that as Pima faciecase is made out bY the} second^{respondent'cognisancewas taken'}

¶29

A perusal of the material available on^{record discloses} that the second respondent^presented a compiaint^before the Court under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C. initially and the said complaint was referred to police, Hanumakonda, for investigation. The Station House Officer, Hanumakonda Police Station, submitted a final report stating that the matter is referred as "mistake of fact". Thereafter, the second respondent Iiled a protest petition. The said petition was entertained and the Court took cognisance of the offence punishable under Sebtion 494 I.p.C. against the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

On this day, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court is not entitled to take cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 494 Lp.C, as the offence even as per the version of the second respondent was committed outside .India, therefore previous sanction is necessa4r and thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In this regard, Iearned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the contents of Section l gB of Cr.p.C.

¶31

¶32

Opposing^{the said version' learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutorstatedthatincaseapartofthetransaction went on^{or pa-rt of the offence is committedin India' then} that^{provision would not apply 'It is also stated that the} sanctioncanbeobtainedandplacedbeforetheCourtat any time^{before the case comesfor examination under} Section^{313 of Cr'P'C' and hence' onthe ground of} absence^{of sanction,the proceedings are not liable to be} quashed'

¶33

Learned^{counselfor the petitionermainly placed his} reliance^{upon the customary divorce that was obtained'} How far^{the said customarydivorce is sustainable in the} eye^{of law is a fact which cannot be decided by this Court'} Further,^{the second respondent, being the husbandof the} petitioner,^{has alleged that without obtaining divorcefrom} him,^{the petitioner contacted another marriage and} committed^{the offencepunishableunderSectior. 494 l'P'C'} Whether^{the allegation of the secondrespondent is true or} not^{and whether' he would prove the guilt of the petitioner} have^{to be decided after due trial'Wnet pima facie} allegations^{are directed against the petitioner' it is not}

¶34

¶35

desirabie to quash the proceedings. Further, no convincing grounds are projected so as to exercise extraordinar5z power grarted under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the criminal petition lacks merits. 9. Resuitantly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

SD/.G,SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTAAR //TRUE COPY// ,./ sEcTloN brrtcen

¶39

To,

¶40

'1. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,Hanumakonda,

¶41

Hanumakonda District.

¶42

The Station House Officer,^{Hanumakonda PoliceStation, Hanumakonda}

¶43

One CC to SRl, A JAGAN, Advocate, [OPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^{High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy SB "X\

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 8t0Zt2OZ2

ORDER

it\ 9 STAI6
/ '/i
a.; I,
2l JUL ztr/l !:

¶50

CRLp.No.6 041 of 2022

¶51

fli?Hs.tjlt":?:^{c R rrr4I NA} L P Eil il o N

¶52

____--==.--s-

Madadi Mounika Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madadi Mounika Reddy v. The State of Telangana and another

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. Shaluddin Siddique Vs State of Telangana and 8 Others

Shaik Fathima , Shaik Pathima Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Kanaparthy Shyam Sunder Vs The State of Telangana

Perni Aneesha Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sandhya Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

K. Chenchurami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana