Telangana High Court
CRLP/16404/2014 of Sunkari Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16404 of 2014 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners (respondent Nos.2 to 8 in DVC) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.17 of 2014 (for short, ‘DVC’) on the file of the First
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16404 of 2014ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482Cr.P.C. by the petitioners (respondent Nos.2 to 8 in DVC)to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.17 of 2014 (forshort, ‘DVC’) on the file of the First Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Warangal.
2. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondents2 to 5 filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act against thepetitioners and another claiming reliefs under Sections 18to 22 of the Act.
3. As per the principle enunciated inValisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[[1]], Mohit Yadam v.State of Andhra Pradesh[[2]]and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v.
Rizwana Sultana[[3]],the reliefs sought under Sections 18to 22 of the Act are purely civil in nature and there is noelement of criminality.
4. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by therespondents 2 to 5 and another are purely civil in naturewithout any element of criminality. Whether they areentitled to claim reliefs against the petitioners or not has tobe decided during the course of trial only. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the case,the same will cause prejudice to either of the parties. Insuch circumstances, the maintainability of the presentpetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase and also the principle enunciated in the cases citedsupra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case toquash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondentNos.2 to 8 in DVC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thepetitioners are facing much difficulty to attend the trialCourt on each and every date of adjournment. Hence,their presence may be dispensed with.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of thepetitioners. Even if the presence of the petitioners isdispensed with, no prejudice would be caused to therespondents 2 to 5.
8. Hence, the presence of the petitioners, who arerespondent Nos.2 to 8 in D.V.C.No.17 of 2014 on the fileof the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Warangal, is hereby dispensed with on each and everydate of adjournment. However, the petitioners/respondents 2 to 8 shall appear before the trial Court asand when their presence is so required.
9. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
Date:30.12.2014Rns
______________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[1]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)
[2]2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)
[3]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)