Criminal Petition No. 5476 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Nov 2010
- Bench
- SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Outcome
Dismissed
2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed, however
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. Akula Laxmi and others …… Petitioners
And State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5476 of 2009
ORDER:
The petitioners 1 to 7 are the respondents 2 to 8 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam. They are parents, sisters and brothers-in-law of the 2nd respondent’s husband who is the 1st respondent in D.V.C. There is no dispute about marriage between the 2nd respondent/aggrieved person and the 1st respondent in D.V.C. After marriage, both the couple went to U.K on 18.06.2008 at which place the husband was working. They returned to India on 07.01.2009. According to the 2nd respondent, it was the petitioners 3 and 4 who settled her marriage giving false information about the bridegroom. It is further alleged that on 10.01.2009 the petitioners 1 to 7 necked out the 2nd respondent from the house alleging that dowry brought by her was exhausted because of they going to U.K and coming back and also demanding additional dowry of Rs.15.00 lakhs.
It is also alleged that the petitioners harassed her and subjected her to cruelty before necking her out making demand for additional dowry. With those allegations, the 2nd respondent/aggrieved person gave report to the protection officer who in turn launched the proceedings against the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent’s husband before the lower Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). Truth or falsity of the said allegations is a matter of fact which has to be decided by the Magistrate after enquiry in which both the parties will lead evidence. This Court cannot go into the said question in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time, the proceedings under the Act are purely civil in nature, though tried or enquired by a criminal Court applying the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the Domestic Violence Case, several reliefs were claimed, out of which reliefs under Sections 18 and 22 of the Act are relevant as against the petitioners i.e., by way of protection and compensation.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, presence of all the petitioners during enquiry of the case in the lower Court is wholly unnecessary. 2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed, however presence of the petitioners 1 and 3 to 7 who are the respondents 2 and 4 to 8 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the lower Court shall be dispensed with during enquiry of the case except on the date of delivery of order therein. November 11, 2010 _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed, however
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Nov 2010. The bench was SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.