Prasadam Nageswara Rao, Hyd. And Ano v. P.P., Hyd And Ano
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8401 OF 2014 Between:
1. PRASADAM NAGESWARA RAO, HYD. AND ANO, Occ Agriculture R/o. Chintalapudi Village Duggirala Mandal Hyderabad District
2. Prasadam Kanakamma, W/o. Nageswara Rao Occ House wife Rl/o. Chintalapudi Village Duggirala Mandal Hyderabad District ...PETITIONERS AND
1. The State of Telangan, rep.by Publ;ic Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad. .....Respondent
2. Prasadam Sumalatha, Wo. Siva Sankara Rao Occ Student Fl/o.H.No. 1612174111 Sailaja Hills Apartments Flat No.11 T.V.Tower Asmangadh Malakpet Hyderabad - 36 ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 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 call for the records in D.V.C.No.121|2O14 on the file of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramtanzil at Hyderabad and quash the same as against petitioners herein .
.A. NO: 2OF 201 CRLPMP. N :7973 OF 2014 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners herein in DVC.No.121l2014 on the file of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanzil at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N SRIHARI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Harija Akkineni, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.84OI OF 2014 ORDER:
The present Criminat petition is hled seeking to call for the records in D.V.C.No.l2l of 2Ol4 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, E;rramanzil, at Hyderabad 'the trial Court") and quash the same against the learned IV (for short, petitioners herein and pass such other order or orders.
2.
No representation on behalf of petitioners and respondent No.2. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent State.
3.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein preferred D.V.C. against her husband and in_laws stating that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by them, for want of additional dowry. Unable to bear such harassment, she filed D.V.C. and sought for reliefs such as protection order, alternative accommodation, return of gold ornaments and household articles, maintenance of Rs.l0,OOO/_ per month, compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO/_ and return of dowry to a tune of Rs.5,OO,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the same, who were in_laws of I --a
) respondent No.2 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the imPugned Proceedings'
4.
The petitioners contended that the petitioners' son intends to co-habit with respondent No 2 and preferred H'M'O'P'No'26 of 2O 13 on the hle of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge' Tenali seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending and the petitioners herein are no way connected with the subject crime and therefore' seeks to quash the impugned proceedings5.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the present Criminal Petrtion is not maintainable by virtue of the decision passed by the composite High Court for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others Vs. State of Telangana and others in Criminal Petition Nos.7289 of 2O15 and batch and Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs' The State of Telangana and Others in Criminal Petition No.22371 of 2015' Therefore' seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon taking into consideration the decisions Fa::ed in Criminal Petition Nos'7289 of 2O15 and
,7 batch and Criminal petition No.2237I of 20 15 passed bv the ersttuhtle High Court cited supra, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal petition at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition stands dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial court, is dispensed with during the course of D.V.C. proceedings on all occasions, except as and when required. Needless to mention, the petitioners are at liberty to workout the remedies as available under law.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.AII/IMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR )'"/ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanzil at Hyderabad' One CC to SRl. N SRIHARI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. HARIJA AKKINENI Advocate [OPUC] i*o cc. to the ASSTSTANT pUBLtC PROSECUToR, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD Copies TL NS w l---
HIGH COURT EWJ DATED:0211112023 1trE STAI4r k )3 23 0E[ 2023
ORDER
<(.'r CRLP.No.8401 ol 2014 * * D r.,)r)r\TC\re!
OTSMISSTNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION.
e6 &84 ,trt"