Dismissed

Katta Venkanna, Penagadapa [v], Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., Hydeabad.

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/1136/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision regarding conviction for dowry harassment, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court found no perversity in the lower courts' judgments and concluded the revision was filed merely to delay proceedings since the petitioner was absent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; miscellaneous petitions to be closed.

Katta Venkanna, Penagadapa [v], Khammam Dist. Vs the… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1136 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12-6-2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 ot 2O08 on the file of the Court of the Judge Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Katta Venkanna, S/o Nagaiah, Occ: Business, R/o. Penagadapa Village, Khammam District.

¶10

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused.

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RespondenUComplainant

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. DAMODAR REDDY (Not Present)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1 136 of 2OO9

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the learned II-Additional .ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in C.C.No.409 oi 2006 clared 2a.Ol.2OO8.

¶21

Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and heard the arguments of learned public Prosecutor.

¶22

Perusal of the record shows that de-facto complainant filecl a complaint against her husband stating that their marriage was performed about 9 years back. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.6O,0O0/- cash and gold ornaments as dorvry to the accused. Both lived happity about one yezlr, bul later :rccused adclictecl to bad vices and extracted Rs_25,OOO/- for csrablishing Kirana Shop, but due to non

¶23

¶24

supervision of the accused,^{business was put to an end.On} 22.02.2006, when P.W. 1/wife^was in^{her grand-father'shouse,} accused came there and dragged^{her and beatindiscriminately.} Later she gave complaint against him in Crime^{No.17 of 2OO6} under Section 498(A).

¶25

The de-facto complainant was examined herself as^{P.W. 1} and she also examined P.Ws.2 & 3 and markcd Exs.Pl to P3 in support of her contention, but accuscd did not adduce any evidence.

¶26

The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record found that accused is guilty for the offence under Section 498-A, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,O00/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and the same was also conhrmed by the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

¶27

The appellant mainly contended that the prcsence of P.W.3 at the scene of oflence is highly doubtful and in the cross examination, P.W.3 admitted that accuscd did not abusc or beat

¶28

the P.W.l in her presence and there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3. He never demanded any additional dowry- At the time ol marriage the petitioner/ accused was financially sorrnd and having landed and other properties including a jeel;, as such the question of demancting additional dowry from P.Ws.1 to 3 does not arise. He further stated thal P.W.1 did not file any medical evidence. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶29

P.W.2 is the father of P.W. 1. He stated that, at the timc o[ marriagc, he gave Rs.60,000/ - cash and gold ornaments as dowry. ap.1 later accused demanded Rs.25,0OO/- to put business and hc paid thc said amount to him, but later he addicted to the bad vices zrnd sustained losses in the business, as such p.W.1 and accused rcturned to Penagada Village and at that time accused dragged P.W. I and beat her indiscriminately, as such she gave complainI against the accused.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor argued that this Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent hndings of both the CoLlrts.

¶31

¶32

This Court Iinds no inhrmiry in the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and it appears that this Criminal Revision Case is hled only to drag on the proceedings and the revision petitioner did not appear before the Court the Criminal Revision

¶33

Case is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR L-!)

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Judge Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam

¶41

The ll Additional Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate at Kothagudem

¶42

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43

One CC to SRl. C. DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

PSR \ Y

I 1

HIGH COURT

PSS, J

DATED: 0310212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1136 of 2009

¶52

ii,r.
'i.
s? 1{11 NB
-':l-..,....--,._ .. l,'; ; , -.,

¶53

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED.

¶54

..$rJ

Katta Venkanna, Penagadapa [v], Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., Hydeabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katta Venkanna, Penagadapa [v], Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., Hydeabad.

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

D. Mallesh, Vs D. Sukanya , Urmila, and Another

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, Vs Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

Syed Hasan Ali Abidi Vs Smt. Arjumand Sultana , Arjumand Fatima and Another

Saroj Kumar Dhir, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Mazid Vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the State of Ap

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc Vs Thokala Ashok