Dismissed

Smt. Ponnala Rukmini and Another v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC6 Mar 2023CRLP/7939/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that there are triable issues. However, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within four months and dispensed with the 1st petitioner's attendance subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Trial to complete within four months; 1st petitioner's attendance dispensed with conditions; 2nd petitioner to appear.

Smt. Ponnala Rukmini and Another Vs The State of… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7939 oF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Smt. Ponnala Rukmini, W/o. Late P. Krishnamachary, Aqe Zl years, Occ. ligu9gylJe,^{Rt/o.Flat No. 301, 3rd Floor,V. N. Nilayam,Tirlmatnagar Cblony,} lvloulali, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Shri. Ponnala Naveen Kumar, S/o. LaIe P. Krishnamachary, Age 45 years, Occ- Unernployed, Rl/o. Flat No. 301, 3RD Floor, V. N. Nilayim, Tirumainagai Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad.

¶10

..PETITIONERS No.1 & 2 /ACCUSED No.2 & 3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Tellngana, Rep by the SHO, P.S WPS CCS, Hyderabad District. Through the Ld- Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

2 Smt. Rameshwaram Archana, W/o. Late Ponnala Anil Kumar, Age about 37 y-ears, Occ. Separated Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-3-183/40/66, SBt Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the fiilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC. No. 312 of 2016 arising out of FIR No. 41|8 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan IVlagistrate at Hyderabad District.

¶17

l.A NO: 1OF 2021

¶18

' Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC. No. 312 of 2016 arising out of FIR No.418 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad District pending disposal of main petitron.

¶19

j ! I t ! ; I : i

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri G VENKAT} SRI MAITHREYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent^{No.1 and} None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I 3 I ! iI i

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION N0.7939 0F 2o2L

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of t]ne Code of Criminal Procedure, I973 (for short^,Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioners/A2 & 43 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3l2 of 2016 on the iile of XIII Additiona_l Chief Metropoliran Magrstrate, Hydcrabad, arising out of FIR No.4lB of 20 15 dt.08.07.2015. Thc offences alleged against them are under Sectior-rs 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 ol'the Dori'ry, Prohibition Act.

¶27

['[carcl lczrrnccl counsel for the petitioners and learr-recl Addit ional l)ublic Prosecutor for the respondent State Perur s<:r-l L1-r c lccord-

¶28

3 Irr thc <;h:rrg..: sheet, pima facie, there are ce rtalrr-I allcg:rtior-rs lcvc--led against the petitioners. Thev are tr-iablc issucs. Thc petitiorrcrs havc to face trial and prove tltcir I II IIO(]C Ii CC 'lhcrc'lore, this Court is not inclined to clr-rarsh procccclings ur C'.C. No.31 2 ol 2016 on the lllc of XIII

¶29

¶30

Additional Chiel Metropolital Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners.

¶31

However, since the case is of the year 20i5 and^charge sheet was liled in the year 2016, the trial Court is directed^to complete the trial within lour (4) months from the^{date of} receipt of a copy of this order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the attendance of the^1"t IS petitioner/A2 dispensed u,ith, with the following conditions:

¶32

i) The attendance of the 1't pstitioner/A2 1S dispensed with in proceedings in C.C.No.312 ol 2016 on the ftle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I{yderabad,^when represented by her counsel on re<:ord

¶33

ii) The attendance of 1" peLitioner lA2 is dispensed subject to filing an aflidavit by her stating that in her absence the proceedings conducted by her counsel u,ill not be disputed by her in any manner and shall not dispule her identity also. iii) However, thc 1.t petitior-rer/A2 shall appear before^the learned Magistrat e as and^u,hetr hcr^presence is required.^In the event of the pctitioncr's lailurc to appear when the Court

¶34

l )tt

¶35

directs, this order dispensing her attendance shall stand

¶36

cancelled

¶37

irr) No such relief is granted as far AS petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is concerned

¶38

5 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed off

¶39

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶40

closed

¶41

Sd/- C.PRAVEEN^KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO

To,

1 . The Xlll Additional^{Chief tvletropolitan Magistrateat Hyderabad'}

¶46

2.ThestationHouseOfficer,WomenPoliceStationCCS,HyderabadDistrict

¶47

Two CCs to the^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶48

One CC to SRI^{G VENKAT SRI MAITHREYA,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶49

Two CD Copies

HIGH GOURT DATED:0610312023

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRLP.No.7939 of 2021

¶56

1 HE STA 16
't
?
APn 208
3 i 12
-./.
t
-it-.,. ^, - -'-
t-.-

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE

¶58

CRIMINAL PETIT!ON

¶59

@o'P"*}

Smt. Ponnala Rukmini and Another v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ponnala Rukmini and Another 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

Mr. Chollet Madhusudhana Chary Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Polepally Pulla Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pudota Jaya Prasad Raja Vs The State of Telangana

Thogari Hanmandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Gampa Krishnaveni Vs The State of Telangana

G.Jeevan Kumar Vs The state of Telangana and another