Partly allowed

Prashant Samanway v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/7452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging conclusion of proceedings in C.C. No. 6501 of 2022 involving dowry and cruelty charges. The court modified the prayer to dispense with personal appearance for the parents, ordering them to appear only for specific procedural stages while ruling that discharge motions be decided on merits within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of parents (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) dispensed; presence required only for rec. under S. 313 Cr.P.C., pronouncement, or if trial court orders otherwise. Discharge petitions to be disp

Prashant Samanway Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132541

¶2

1 al :, g !I :

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G. ANUPAITA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITIO NO: 7'152 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Prashant Samanway, S/o. Chitranjan Prasad, Age 31 years, Occ Student R/o_ Main Colony, Near Shiva Mandir, Qtr. No. 44, Shudambhih, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 828 126

¶10

Chitranjan Prasad Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ Police Service, R/o. Road No. 2, Galli No. 2, Adarsh Colony, Near Doon Public School Chapra, Bhihar, Pin - 841 301

¶11

Raj Kumari Devi, Wo. Chitranjan Prasad Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ Housewife Rl/o. Road No. 2, Galli Ne. 2, Adarsh Colony, Near Doon Public School' chapra' Bihar' Pin No 841 301

¶12

...pETrroNERrAccusED^.r ro 3

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Protection Officer High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 Smt. Akanksha Kumari, Wo. Prashant Shamanway, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Luxury Gayathri Women Hostel, backside of Apollo Hospital' Kothaguda circle' Kondapu'' n'ot'"'1-oc="poNDENT/coirpLArNANTs

¶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 proceeding in C. C. No. 6501 ot 2022 on the file of lhe I Additional Junior Civil Judge. cum- lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District (old C. C. No. 56 of 2O21 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civit Judge- cum- Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad)

¶17

l.A NO: 1OF 2023

¶18

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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners Al to 3 in C.C. No. 65O1 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge. cum- lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District (old C. C. No. 56 ot 2021 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- Xlll Addl.

¶19

I I

¶20

I I II t I I ! i i },

¶21

I,letropolitan Ma tistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad) pen,ling d s;;,6s2,1 of the above Criminal Petition

¶22

This Petit:rn coming on for hearing,upon perlsing :hr) Ivlemorandum of Grounds of Crin nirl Petition and _rpon hearing the a.gume 1t!; of Smt. Anupriya Sethi, Advocate 'or the Petitioner and the public p;osecut()r or behalf of the Respondent No. i:rnc None appeared on behalf of Re:;ponrtrrnl No. 2

¶23

The Court made :h,: following: ORDER

¶24

II I I a, I I a il I : !i

¶25

I r

¶26

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAXRAVARTHY

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7452 OF 2o23

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.J by the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.65O1 of 2022 on the hle of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Section 498-A, 354 (i) (ii), 5O9 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, L961.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State. Perused the record

¶31

Though the present petition is hled seeking to quash tJle proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.6501 of 2O22, during the course ol arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners confrned his prayer to the extent of dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court.

¶32

¶33

I ! II i , ! I I I

¶34

Taki rg into consideration the fact that ,)nl./ general allegations are leveled against the petitioners/ rc:cus.ed Nos.2 and ll, wt r) are the parents of petitioner / accr.s;,::d No.1, the appea ranc' /irttendance of the petitioners / a ccus;e c[ Nos.2 and 3 before the ,/ A<lditional Junior Civil Judge Curn-)ltII Additional Metropolitz n M,agistrate, Ranga Reddy District at I( uk:Ltpally, in C.C. No.65 .tl of 2022, is dispensed with, unless t}:eir presence is required by the trial Court for a specifi(t pur rc)se or at the time of rec :,rling their exa.mination undcr Set.l rc rr 3 f 3 Cr-P.C. and on the C rtr: of pronouncement o[ judgnLent, I,,Jc s tch relief is given so rrt as petitioner,/ accused No.1 is :once.rrcd.

¶35

Furtl ,:r, the petitioners / accused Nc,s.2 rtn I .i are at liberty to h ,: a1, "Op1t".tion before the trial Coun s cel,:ing their discha.rge. l):r. s;uch applic:rtion being filed, ihe tr trl C<,urt shall dispose of t:rr: same on mer.its within three rvecks Jr.om the date of filing of^, lrt: said petition, rvithout being i.rflue,r <:i:d by any of the observa :ir;ns made by this Court.

¶36

6 .A,ccor :[i:rg$, the Criminal Petition is di;pose,1 of.

¶37

.Pendi rti rniscellaneous applications, ,f arn, sh.rll stand

¶38

closed

¶39

¶40

Sd/- C. FRAVEEN KUMAR ASSIISTAN REGISTRAR /fl.RUE COPY// {

¶41

1;r:c]10N oFFtcER

¶42

To, '1. The I Additi rnal Junior Civil Judge - cum - lX Add tional Vtr,,troprolitan Magistrate, Ritnga Reddy District.

¶43

2- The Statior^-1,tuse Officer, lT rlorridor Police Station, C,7t,r>rabad, Ranga Reddy Dist ct.

¶44

3 gne^(lC to inrt..Anupriya Sethi, Advocate(OPUC)

¶45

Two^(lcs tc tl-e Public Prosecutor, High Court for'tre Sta e )f Telangana lourl

¶46

Two CD Cc :,ies

IVBC

FIIGiH COURT

DATE,Et:^(t910812023

ct
/'^
/ i.-
il : SEt ?SB

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLP.NcT ,t4ti2 of 2023

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMII\iA.L PETITION

¶55

I,Q
(@q
^l<br>ffi&.",

Prashant Samanway v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Samanway 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

Salla Manjula @ Manjula Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kura Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Eediga Anjaneyulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Satish Pinnamaneni Vs The State of Telangana

Cheekatla Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Suleman Bin Sayeed Baom, Vs The State of Telangana