Dismissed

N.Krishna Reddy, West Bengal and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and 3 Otrs.

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023CRLP/7574/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order in a Domestic Violence case. The Court held that DV orders are civil in nature, andSection 482 is not maintainable. It relied on precedent stating that alternative remedies exist and impleadment does not grant criminal offence status.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition and related miscellaneous petitions dismissed and closed.

N.Krishna Reddy, West Bengal and Anr., Vs State of Ap… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

il 1l

¶2

I³²⁹⁹ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7574 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

N.Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Neeladri Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ:Govt. Employee in Eastern Railways, Sr.Section Engineer, Jhaljhalia Post, Ryo. Qtr.No. 77C, Malda Railway Colony, English Bazar, Malda Dishict, Kolkata, West Bengal - 732102

¶10

Smt. Mangi Tulasi Reddy, Wo. N.Krishna Reddy, Housewife, Fyo. Jhaljhalia Post, Malda District, Kolkata, West Bengal - 732102

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSEDS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana-, rept, by the Public Prosecutor, High Courl, Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt. N.Savitri Reddy, Wo. N.Krishna Reddy, Housewife, R/o. Block No. B- 67/23, Rajeevgruhakalpa, Papireddy Colony, Chandanagar, R.R.District.

¶15

M.Vijay Kumar, S/o. N-Krishna Reddy, Labour, R/o. Block No. 8-67/23, Rajeevgruhakalpa, Papireddy Colony, Chandanagar, R.R.District.

¶16

N.Sravanthi Reddy, D/o. N.Krishna Reddy, Household, Rl/o. Rajeevgruhakalpa, Papireddy Colony, Chandanagar, R.R.District.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶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 quash the DVC. No. I of 2014 on the file of the XIX - MM Court, Cyberabad, Kukatpally for the petitioners concerned.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 7103 OF 2014)

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further^proceedings including execution of interim order

¶21

passed ir DV, .l.lo 812014 on the file of the XIX lrll,4 Court, Cyberabad, Kukatpally R R. )istrict pending disposal of the Crl.p

¶22

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2( 14 CRLPMP. NO: 7104 OF 2014

¶23

Petition L rcer Section 482 of Ct.P.C prayin(l that irr thi) circumstances stated in the lVr n )randum of Grounds of Criminal F)etitiorr, he High Court may be pleased tc s lsreid the operation of the order (Jated 2€; 03ZO14 passed in Crl.MP No 1013 lC14 in DVC.No.812014 on the fle o[:.e (X M tvl Court, Cyberabad, Kr.rk t1:ally R.R.District pending disposal tf the l.^pertition .

¶24

This Petil^'tr ccming on for hearing, upon perusing t.re l/emorandum of Grounds of Cr rri ral Petttion and upon hearing the a qltm€ nts of M/S. y ANUPAMA DE\ Advocate for the Petitioner and ()f the: S;ll. VTZARATH ALl, LEARNED Assis a.t Public Prosecutor for the Stat<: of 1-rrl:rngana on behalf of the Respondent Jc 1 and None Appeared for the Responcr€n No. Z,3 and 4

¶25

The Court made :h 3 following: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7574 OF 2014

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash.D.V.C,Ng.8 of 2Ol4 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberalad, Kukatpally.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶31

The brief facts of the case are respondent No.2 herein is a legalIy wedded wife of petitioner No.l herein and the marriage was solemnized in the year 1987 as per the rites and customs in the presence of elders and at the time of marriage, the patents of respondent No.2 paid 50,OOO/AS dowry, and also presented other household articles to petitioner No.1 towards dowry and the marriage was consummated and out of wedlock she blessed with three children. After some time, petitioner No.1 started harassing respondent No.1 physically and mentally, respondents left the house of petitioner No.1 and was living separately. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not having any source of income, as petitioner No,l being the Government Employee is earning sufhciently Therefore, the respondents herein had filed D.V.C.No8 of 2014.

¶32

After taking c r record, the oral ald docunrentarr evidence, the learned Cottrt 3r116'1a, had partll' allowed the oe't,it.i;r , directing the petitioner N,c. herein to pay Rs.8,000/- ar; mo-ri-or-r' relief and Rs.2,0007 - as r.re<lical laciiity to respondent Nos.t, tr,^.1 tou.ards their monthll, naixtenance under Section 2f, o1'th _, Protection of Womar frorn [.r.'.Act, 2OO5 from the dzLte ol filing of that application. { Sgrieved by the same, petitioner N o. I herein prclerred the l r't-sent Crimin:rl Petition pendir-rg D ! .(].

¶33

The cc,rr rtosite High Court for States ol '[:largana and Andl.rra Pradc^{.,1' .,,ide} order <iated 16.02.!t0l5, in^,,Giduthurt Kesari Kutn< r and others Vs. State ,cf 'T e'l11gana and other!' in^(lr rrinal Petition Nos.7289 of 2015 ar rcl batch held thzrt the r:rirn rrrl petitions iiled under Se<rtion ,132 of Cr.p.C. seeking to qr-rz^.;1. the proceedings in respecl ol f .,,'.C. cases are not maintainal k. as the orders passed under the 1) V.C. Act are in the nature c r:ivil reliefs arrd none of the r elielt r rca t the partv respondent as lrr offer-rder. Mere. impleadmcnt rt' t person as a party respondr r,: in a Domestic Violence Car;e do:r, not givc risc to a criminal ol etrce to quash the proceedingr; at tJt<,ir-ritial stage.

¶34

The cotn rc,sit.e High Cottrt for States of Ir l:rrLgana and Andl-rra Prad,3s r vide order clated 17.07.201 5 in "Gaddq.meedi Nagamani^ys The . State of Tetangana a.n tl Others,, ir-r

¶35

¶36

Criminal Petition No.2237 I of 2015 held that rvhen there is an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeat, the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable.

¶37

In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel ald upon perusal of the material available on record and taking into consideration the order dated 16.02.2015 in Criminal Petition Nos.7289 of 20 15 and batch and the order dated 17.O7.2015 in Criminal Petition No.2237t of 2015 passed by the erstuhile High Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Petition at this stage.

¶38

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed

¶39

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SD/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

To, 1 . The XIX Metropolitan^{lvlagiskate CourtCyberabad, Kukatpally Hyderabad.} 2. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor,^{High Courtfor State of Telangana,at} HvderabadlOUTl

¶45