Telangana High Court
CRLP/15998/2014 of Dandamudi Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.15998 of 2014 ORDER : The petitioner, who is A1, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.277 of 2014 of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15998 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is A1, filed the present application underSection 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest inconnection with Crime No.277 of 2014 of Amaravathi Police Station,Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections498-A, 509 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner is the husband of theinformant, who is working in Indian Railways.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of theinformant with petitioner/A1 took place on 07.08.2009. At the time ofmarriage, her parents given cash of Rs.5 lakhs, 10 gold banglesweighing 15 sovereigns,, a chain of five sovereigns and necklace of 5sovereigns. It is alleged that apart from that articles worth Rs.1 lakhwere presented. Soon after the marriage, the informant joined withA1 to lead marital life. It is alleged that when she was conceived, thepetitioner, his brother and in-laws forced her for abortion. Since April,2010, her in-laws were demanding the informant for additional dowryof Rs.1,80,000/- and they forcibly collected gold jewellery worthRs.1,80,000/-. In the month of October, 2010, when the informantgave birth to a child, the accused did not visit the hospital as shegave birth to a female child and all the hospital expenses borne bythe father of the informant. When the informant joined her husband in2013, it is alleged to have been demanded her father for money, assuch her father deposited Rs.60,000/- in State Bank of India, MarketBranch, Guntur. Then A1 is alleged to have taken ATM of theinformant and withdrew the said amount. It is alleged that on20.09.2014, the petitioner and his brother at the instigation of theirparents caught hold of her tuft and demanded additional dowry. Asthe informant could not meet the same, the informant left the matrimonial home. Basing on these allegations, the above report waslodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegationsmade in the report are vague in nature and invented for the purposeof the case. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, opposed the petition.
4. The allegation in the report made by the informant that she wasforcibly aborted, appears to be incorrect for the reason that themedical report issued by Care Hospitals would show that the saidpregnancy was aborted due to bleeding in vagina as she wassuffering from ammenorrhoea.
5. Since the petitioner is a Government employee, he is directedto appear before the concerned Magistrate and make an applicationafter giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor and the Magistrateshall be dealt with the same on merits in accordance with law on thesame day.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
___________________
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
30[th] December, 2014pab