Partly allowed

Pattem Sambaiah v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2022CRLP/9997/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged the petitioners of the requirement of personal appearance for every adjournment in pending DV proceedings under Section 482 CrPC if represented by counsel, while retaining discretion to order appearance in specific cases.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate not to insist on personal appearance of petitioners during DV proceedings in Luxettipet if represented by counsel, with an exception for Section 31 proceedings.

Pattem Sambaiah Vs the State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

Criminal Petition No. 9997 of 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pattem Sambaiah, Sio. Mallaiah, Aged-60 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.NO. 1 5-14lA, Sangamallaiahpally, Naspur, District Manchiral State, Telangana.

¶8

Pattem Sarojana, Wo Pattem Sambaiah, Aged. 56 Years, Occ- House Wife, R/o.H.No.15-14OlA, Sangamallaiahpally, Naspur Mandal, Naspur, Mancherial District, Telangana State.

¶9

Dommati Bhagaya, Wo. Dommati Sathish, Age. 32 Years, Occ. House wife. R/o.C/o.Shivakiaranam, Nanda, Fata, P.O. Nanda, Korpana, District Chandrapur, Maharastra.

¶10

Chintham Swapna, W/o Chintham Bhasker, Age. 30 Years, Occ-House Wife, R/o. Plot No. 58, H.No 4-53, Clo. Sri Vishank Motors, Ambedhkarnagar Road, Dammaigudha X Road, Hyderabad

¶11

-..Petitioners.

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana.

¶14

Peftam Sandhya Rani, Wo. Pettam Raju, Aged about- 33 years, OccLiquor Goam, R/o.H.No.5-76, Uthkoor Chowrastha, Juthkoor, Luxettepet Mandal of Mancherial District, Telangana State.

¶15

... Respondents.

¶16

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 the Petition vide D.V.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class at Luxettipet.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,} the High Court may be^pleased to STAY all^{furtherproceedingsin} D.V.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of Judicial^{magistrate of First Class at} Luxettipet including appearance of^petitioners.

¶19

This Petition comi g on for hearing, upon perusing the, lV emorandum of Grounds of Crimi al Petition and upon hearing the argtuments of Sri Govardhan Reddy Joundla, Advocate for the Petitionr:r and the Public Prosecutor on beh, lf of the Respondent No.1 and of the ResponrJent No. 2 not appearing in pr rson or through her counsel.

¶20

The Court made th( following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9997 of 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as Respondents Nos.2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.07 of 2021, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Ciass at Luxettipet.

¶24

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.1 is a formal party. In the light of the limited request made, issuance of notice to Respondent No.2 is felt not necessary.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are roped with the proceedings in Domestic Violence Case only because they are related to the husband of the 2.d respondent. Learned counsel also states that the petitioners never resided along u,ith the 2nd respondent and her husband. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are facing much difficulty 1n attending the Court for each and every adjournment, that too residing at a far away place and therefore, no further orders are

¶26

¶27

Dr.CSt,l ( rl.P-No 9997 0f 2022

¶28

)

¶29

required in this Criminal Petition, except to rl spense with the personz i appearance of the petitioners rr:lbre t.he l rial Court on ea :h and every adjournment.

¶30

This lourt has clearlv indicated irL :ts order in Crimina.l Pr tition No.5840 of 2022. dated O7.O7.2022 that the proceec ings that are undertaken under tlre Protection of Women f om Domestic Violence Act, 2005, L-r' thr: Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for gl'ar ting varrous kinds of rel efs as enshrined under Sections lt; to 2:2 of the Protection r f Women from Domestic Violencr: Act, 2C05, are more ci'nil i r nature and therefore, the persorral app,ea*rnce of the respr ndents therein for each and everv iLdjournment, ln case tt ey are represented by their rounsel. is not required. E xhibiting the same view, this C:inrinal Petjtion is disposed ol with the following directions:-

¶31

(i) The⁽ )ourt of Judicial Magistrate of lrir,;t Class at Lr;xet ripet, is directed not to insist upon personal appe; rance of the petitioner Nos. I to 4/Re;pondent Nos.2 to 5 during the course of procr :dings in D.V.C.No.O7 of 2O2l that is pr:nding on tl e file of the said Court, in cas: they are repre ;ented by an Advocate.

¶32

¶33

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.N0.9997 of 2022

¶34

(ii) Hou'ever, the above direction does not debar the Court from ordering the personal appearance of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein, who are petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein, in case their appearance is felt necessary. Also, this exemption does not apply if the proceedings are commenced under Section 3 1 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2O05.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous

¶36

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

To,

.t_ SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Judicial magistrate of First Class at Luxettioet 23. . One one CC to CC to the Sri Public prosecutor, Govardhan Reddy J.oundla, Hign Coilrt Advoiate foiihe State tOpUClof Telangana at Hvderabad. 4. Two CD Copies JCK ?f

HIGH COURI-

Dr. CSL,J

DATEDj411112021

ORDER

CRLP.No.9997 of^'. O22

¶47

Disposing of the C minal Petition

¶48

(
" /'/
'-*
-..r
C)

Pattem Sambaiah v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattem Sambaiah v. the 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

Putta Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telanangana

Kothakota Vijay Kumar and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Reguri Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana

Dasaradha Rama Rao Vs EmmidiKrishnaiah

M/s. Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Falaha Ur Rahaman Vs The State of Telangana