Dismissed

K. Shekher Reddy, Hyd v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023CRLP/8518/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash domestic violence proceedings. Relying on composite High Court precedents, the Court held the petition not maintainable at this stage, while dispensing the petitioner from appearing in court unless required.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of appearance before the trial court is dispensed with except as and when required.

K. Shekher Reddy, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32es J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8518 OF 20'14

¶7

Between:

¶8

501, Krishnaja Residency, 5:.SF.I_EKHER EEDDY,^{S/o ptot Late K Krishna Reddy Aged} No. 94 Srinagar ioto-ny, nyObiiOiO-OJa.^{48 years,} Occ Business,^{-- -:'} R/o^'

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|T|ONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶11

srATE oF TELANGANA, Rep. by itspubric prosecutor Hrgh court, Hyderabad. 2. Dr. Swathi Reddy, wo K.srinivasutu Reddy Aged auout s5 yeais, 6"i brinooonti"t tUo Permanent resident of Lorton, Virgina, U.SA presenfly iesiding at 3-6_200, Nandini Enctave Ftat no. 404, .Street No. i5, Himayatnagir, HVOeiaOiJ^{- ---'}

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 proceedings against the petitioners in DVC No. 147 ot io13 on the file of lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2015(CRLPMP. NO:9460 F 20151

¶15

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 extend the interim order dated 07.11.2074 passed in crl. P. No.8518/2014

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 8108 OF 20141

¶17

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 in DVC No. 147 of 2013, on the file of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, so far as petitioner is concerned, pending disposal of the Petition for Quash.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M/S INDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Vizarath Ali, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Vilek Jain, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION N0.8518 0F 2014

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in D.V.C.No.l47 of 2013 on the frle of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court") and pass such other order or orders.

¶24

No representation on behalf of petitioner and respondent No.2. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent State.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the younger brother of the petitioner married respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 preferred a D.V.C. against her husband and in-laws stating that she was being subjected cruelty by them and the same was taken cognizance by the Court of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Petition.

¶26

The petitioner contended that there was no domestic relationship between himself and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 falsely implicated him in the subject crrme

¶27

¶28

therefore, continuation^{of proceedingsagainst him would amount} to abuse of^{processof law. Hence, seeks to quash the impugned} proceedings.

¶29

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorcontended that the} present Criminal^{Petition is not maintainableby virtue of the} decision passed^{by the composite High Court for States of} Telangana and^{AndhraPradeshin Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and} others Vs. State^{of Telanganaand others in CriminalPetition} Nos.T28gof2ol5andbatchandGaddameediNagamaniVs. The State of^{Telanganaand Others inCriminalPetition} No.22371 of^{20 15. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal} Petition.

¶30

Having regard^{to the submissions made by the learned} counsel Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} .and^{upon taking into} consideration^{the decisionspassed in Criminal Petition Nos'7289} of 20 15 and^{batch and CriminalPetition No'22371 of 2015} passed by the^{ersttahileHigh Court cited supra' this Courtis not} inclined to entertain^{this criminal Petitionat this stage and the} same is liable^{to be dismissed'}

¶31