Criminal Petition No. 5304 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner died, and as such, the case against him got abated. In so far as petitioners 1 and 3 to 10 are concerned, the wife of 1st petitioner-2nd respondent herein…
- Para 77. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, in so far as petitioners 3 to 10 herein are concerned, are hereby quashed. However, the Court…
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in D.V.C.No.2 of
2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, against the petitioners herein, alleging that her marriage took place with the 1st petitioner on 06.02.1998 at her parents’ house at Anakapalle. At the time of marriage, her parents paid Rs.2 lakh towards dowry, Rs.40,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and also gave sare samans worth Rs.80,000/-. During their wedlock, a male child was born on 03.11.1998. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner started demanding her to bring additional dowry to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs and harassing her both physically and psychologically. The 1st petitioner has been neglecting to maintain her and her son and threatening that he would kill her and her son, if she gave a complaint against him. 2nd petitioner is father and petitioners 3,5,7,9 and 10 are sisters of the 1st petitioner and 4th petitioner is husband of 3rd petitioner and 6th petitioner is husband of 5th petitioner and 8th petitioner is husband of 7th petitioner and all of them are instigating and encouraging the 1st petitioner to harass and trouble her. Hence, she filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, she has not chosen to put in her appearance either in person or through an Advocate.
Heard both sides.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner died, and as such, the case against him got abated. In so far as petitioners 1 and 3 to 10 are concerned, the wife of 1st petitioner-2nd respondent herein has also lodged a complaint with the police concerned against all the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act IPC, and the police registered the same as Crime No.756 of 2007. The police, after conducting investigation, found that no offence is made out against petitioners 3 to 10, and accordingly, deleted their names and filed charge sheet against petitioners 1 and 2 herein only.
In the light of the said submission and also the fact that the 2nd petitioner died and the case against him got abated, in my considered view, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 are liable to be quashed, in so far as petitioners 3 to 10 herein are concerned.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, in so far as petitioners 3 to 10 herein are concerned, are hereby quashed. However, the Court below may proceed against the 1st petitioner herein, in accordance with law. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 25th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5304 of 2008 (Allowed) Date:25-06-2010 CBS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
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.