Disposed

Ch. Vijay Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024CRLP/11107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a petition under Section 528 BNS to quash domestic violence proceedings is not maintainable as Section 29 of the DV Act provides an efficacious remedy via appeal. The petition was disposed of; accused appearance was dispensed with absent warrants, subject to recall.

What did the court decide?

Appearance of petitioners in the Domestic Violence case dispensed with except on dates requiring presence; criminal petition disposed of.

Ch. Vijay Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESNT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: ll'107 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch. Vijay Prasad, S/o Late Melki Raju, Age. 37 Years, Occ House Hold,^R/o 12-12-139, Ravindra Nagar, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶8

Ch. Shantamma, W/o Late Melki Raju, Age. 67 Years. Occ. House Hold,^R/o 12-12-139, Ravindra Nagar, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶9

Chennupati Marthamma, Wo Papaiah, Aged about 48^{years, Occ-Staff} Nurse, R/o H.No 8-'l38/8, lllew Sai Nagar, Peerzadiguda, Medipally,^Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court^{for the} State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt. Chennupati Anitha Rani, Wo Ch. Vijay Prasad,^{tua 31 Yrs} ,^{Occ. Grama} Volunteer, Turkapalem VillAge, Ravipadu Post, Nakirikallu^{Mandal, Guntur} District, Presently R/o H.No.34-6311913211 ,^{1st Floor. Sriramanpuram,} RamanthaPur'

¶14

...RESP.NDENT

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion, the^{High Court may} be pleased to Quash the^proceeding in DVC NO^{68 of 2022 on the file of ll Junior} Civil Judge cum Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at Uppal.^{Medchal-Malkajgiri} District. pending disposal of the above Criminal^petition

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition.the High Court may} be pleaserl to stay all^proceeding in DVC^{NO 68 of 2022 on the file of ll Junior} Civil Judge cum Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate.^{at Uppal, tvledchal-Malkajgiri} District, pending disposal of the above Criminal^petition

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri ANI RUDHN} Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla,^{the Additional Public} Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1^{and none appeared for the} Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.111O7 of 2024

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSSI by the petitioners/ respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.68 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶23

Heard Sri Animdh Nellikonda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public prosecutor for respondent No. l-State. Perused the record.

¶24

ln the light of the judgment in Gad.d.amcedl Nagamani a. State of Telanganat a petition to quash the proceedings in Domestic Violence Case is not maintainable, as Section 29 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20O5 aff,rrds an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal against the act of the Court belorv in taking cognizance and numbering the D.V.C.

¶25

In vieu, of the above, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the said alternative rcmedv.

¶26

Horvever, in view of the request made by the leamed counsel for the petitioners, if there erre no warrants pending against the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings .rgainst them in D.v.c.No.6g of 2022 pending on the file of the

¶27

'^{zor s} 121 At,D (cRL.) 764

¶28

¶29

learned II Additional Junior^{Civil Judge-Cum-VlAdditional Metropolitan} Magistrate at Uppal, Medchal^{Malkajgiri District, is dispensedwith,except} on the dates whenever^{their presenceis required by the trial Court, and they} shall be represented by their counsel^{on every date of hearingand in case of} default, this order^{gets vacatedautomatically.}

¶30

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Petition is disposed oL}

¶31

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending,shall also standclosed'}

¶32

Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.1. The ll Junior Civil Judge cum Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate. at Uppat. Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶37

The Station House Officer,Uppal Police Station,Medchat lvlatlkalgirr Distiict.

¶38

One CC to SRI ANI RUDH Nellikonda, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT],

¶39

Two CD Copies.

AR /gh

Prrq-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:20t09t20?.4

ORDER

CRLP.No.1110t ot 2024

¶47

( 1r 1llE S t4 It :- .'.r
/f,
oC)
0 5 rJ[V 202{
\t! a
.1

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶49

|1<sup>to\ru

Ch. Vijay Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Vijay Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Mateen Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana

Saini Venugopal Vs The State of Telangana

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mala Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Pasumarthi Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Karnati Pardhasaradhi Vs The State of Telangana