Telangana High Court
CRLP/142/2008 of Sangu Narsaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 December 2009
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.P.NO.142 OF 2008. Date:24.12.2009 Between:- Sangu Narsaiah ..Petitioner/Accused No.5 And The State, through S.H.O. P.S. Metpally, Karimnagar District, represented by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRL.P.NO.142 OF 2008.
Date:24.12.2009
Between:-
Sangu Narsaiah
..Petitioner/Accused No.5
And
The State, through S.H.O. P.S. Metpally, Karimnagar District,represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabadand another.
.. Respondents
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:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed bythe petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.195 of 2007 onthe file of the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Metpally.
The petitioner is Accused No.5 in C.C.No.405 of 2003 onthe file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As the petitioner was not apprehended, the case against him was separated and numberedas C.C.No.195 of 2007. The other accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 weretried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli and they wereacquitted for the said offences.
The categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court is thatthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is not disclosing anything against A-4to A-7 along with A-1 to A-3 to show that they harassed P.W.3 foradditional dowry. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish thecruelty to P.W.3 and accordingly, they were acquitted.
The case of the present petitioner also stands on the samefooting as that of the other accused, who were already acquitted. As a matter of fact, the investigating officer, at the time of filing ofthe charge sheet, did not find any material to connect A-5 with theoffences alleged. Therefore, his name was initially deleted fromthe charge sheet, but on the protest petition, his name was againincluded. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to show that thepetitioner instigated the other accused to harass P.W.3 or he issaid to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Even thoughthe evidence is adduced, no useful purpose would be served. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner isnothing but abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing theproceedings in C.C.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate, Metpally.
___________
K.C.BHANU, J
24thDecember, 2009AMD