Telangana High Court
CRLP/2523/2010 of Garlapati Sridhar Reddy,A-1 Vs Garlapati Kavitha, on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2523 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/ A .1 to A .3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. A .2 and A .3 are parents of A .1 who is husband of the 1st respondent/de facto complainant. It is contended by the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.2523 of 2010
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 petitioners 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 are accused of offencepunishable under Section 498-A IPC. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1who is husband of the 1[st] respondent/de facto complainant. It iscontended by the Senior Counsel for the petitioners that afterinstitution of the case, A.1 was granted divorce from the 1[st] respondentby the Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.601 of 2008 and that nowthe 1[st] respondent married another person and as per the informationto the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent is carrying pregnancy through herpresent husband. Subsequent events of obtaining divorce and the defacto complainant marrying another person may not have any bearingon the decision in this crime. Those subsequent events do notabsolve any of the petitioners from liability for the alleged acts whichwere committed prior to grant of divorce.
2. It is further contended for the petitioners that on reading ofdetailed FIR given by the 1[st] respondent, allegations touching theoffence under Section 498-A IPC were made against A.1 only and thatthere are no specific allegations against A.2 and A.3 except an omnibus allegation of A.2 and A.3 supporting A.1. It is alleged that when she questioned A.1 as to why he was coming to the house in drunkenstate A.1 was beating her and that A.2 and A.3 used to support A.1. The allegation of demanding Rs.50,000/- is against A.1 only. It isalleged that on 08.02.2004 A.1 and A.3 beat her severely and neckedher out of the family house. The said incident is not coupled with anydemand for additional dowry. Subsequently on 28.06.2004 A.1brought back the 1[st] respondent from her parents’ house. Even duringthe alleged incident on 12.05.2006, it was A.1 alone who is said tohave asked the 1[st] respondent to bring money from her parents. Thegeneral allegation against A.2 and A.3 is that they were supportingA.1. There is absolutely no allegation against A.2 and A.3 that any ofthem demanded any additional dowry and subjected the 1[st]respondent to cruelty. As they happened to be parents of A.1, givingmoral support to A.1 cannot be taken as participation of them in theoffence which is said to have been perpetrated by A.1 against the 1[st]respondent. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion thatcontinuation of this criminal case against A.2 and A.3 becomesnothing but abuse of process of law.
3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed insofaras the 1[st] petitioner/A.1 is concerned; and the Criminal Petition ispartly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.358 of 2006 on the fileof Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodad insofar as thepetitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 are concerned.
Dt. 30[th] December, 2011.
PNV
________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J