Disposed

K. Bharani Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023CRLP/6860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought to quash proceedings against petitioners in a domestic violence case. The Court disposed of the petition by dispensing with the personal attendance of petitioners respondents 2 to 4 in the trial court, conditioning it on filing of affidavits and retaining jurisdiction to restore attendance if required.

What did the court decide?

Directions dispensed with the personal attendance of petitioners respondents 2 to 4 in the trial court proceedings, subject to filing of affidavits and appearance when specifically required.

K. Bharani Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6860 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Bharani Kumar, S/o. K. Venu^gopala Chary, Occupation. Accountant, R/o. H.No. 1-4-156, Road No.9, New Marutinagar, Kothapet. Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

K. Vara Laxmi, Wo. K. Venu^gopala Chary, Occupation. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-4-156, Road No.9, New Marutinagar, Kothapet, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

K. Venu Gopala Chary, S/o. K. Madhava Chary Occupation.^Retired Employee, R/o. H.No. 1-4-156, Road No.9, New^Marutinagar, Kothapet, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioner L to 3/ Accused Nos. 2 to 4

¶12

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor T.S. High Court.

¶14

P.Geetha Madhuri, W/o. K.Vinay Kumar, Occupation. Housewife, Vo.^{H.No.14-4-8H0001,} Baghiradah Colony, Mahaboob Nagar, Telangana.

¶15

.., Respondent/complainant

¶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 call for the records in^DVC No.18 of 2022 on the file of the III ADDITIONAL IUNIOR CML JUDGE CUM III ADDTTIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE^FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBNAGAR and the same may be^quashed against the Petitioners 1to 3/ Respondents Nos.2 to^4.

¶17

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2O23

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C prayrn9 that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of G rou nds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all further

¶19

proceedings in DVC No. t8 of 2022 On the file of the III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM IIT ADDTTIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT MAH,ABUBNAGAR against the Petitioners 1 to 3/ Respondents Nos. Z b 4, pending finalization of the Criminal petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearirig the ATgUMETitS Of Sri RACHAKONDA RAMAKRISHNA. AdVOCAtE rOi thc Petitioner, Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1, None appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

\ \

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.686o oF 20/23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.p.C.J by the petitioners -respondent Nos.2 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.l8 of 2022 pending on the file of learned III Additional Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, under Section 12 of protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2O05.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additionat Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. I _ State. Perused the record.

¶29

Though the petitioners have raised several grounds to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to dispense with the app€arance of the petitioners - respondent Nos.2 to 4, in the aforesaid case before the trial Court.

¶30

4' considering the submission of learned counser for trre petitioners; the criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶31

¶32

i) The attendance of the petitioners - respondent Nos.2 to 4 is dispensed with in D.V.C.No. 18 of 2022 pending on 1.he file of learned III Additional Judicial Civil Judge cum lll.rdditional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahabubnagar, as ernd when represented by their counsel on record.

¶33

ii) The attendance of the petitioners is dispensed s;ubject to filing of aflidavits by the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and shall not dispute their identity also. iii) However, the petitioners shall appear before tht: learned Magistrate as and when their presence is specifically reqrired. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear as per the direction of the trial Court, this order dispensing with their attendance before the trial Court shall stand cancelled.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

¶37

sD/-^{G. SIREESHA} ASSISTAT{T^REGISTRAR ( -lr' llrRUEcoPYll SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

toi.rn" III Additional lunior civil Judge cum IIt Additional

¶39

-' ludicial Magistrate First Class At Mahabubnagar 2.Two CCs^{to PUBL-I'"pnOSecuro&-High Court for the} - State ofTelangana, Hyderabad tO-qT]'nhCnnroNDA RAMAKRISHNA' Advocate

¶40

1. one cc^{to s.i} loPUCl

¶41

1. Two CD^CoPies SP

Prtq.

HIGH COURT

KS.J +{

DATED:261(J7 12023

Ic-
) P<br>(l
12 stP tm
,J, *
\t .D/- 'T r\li-r! -;./r.-)

¶47

;
I
!

¶48

oR-P.-F.-R i, , CRLP:No.686O ' of 2O23

¶49

CRIMINAI.iPETITION IS ( .DISPOSED OF

¶50

@P+q, .{q-3'

K. Bharani Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Bharani Kumar 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

Pasham Rama Raju, Nalgonda District Vs the State of a.P., Rep.by P.P., High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad

D. Suresh Raj, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Spl. Pp Hyd., for Acb.

K.Krishna Swaroop Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Irikilla Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Rabia Sultana, Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Ahmed Ali Vs The State of Telangana