Telangana High Court
CRLP/16360/2014 of T.Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao Vs Tanneeru Sridevi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16360 of 2014 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners (respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 in DVC) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2012 (for short, ‘DVC’) on the file of the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16360 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:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by thepetitioners (respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 in DVC) to quash theproceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2012 (for short, ‘DVC’) on the file of theJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedPublic Prosecutor.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1 filed apetition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the petitioners hereinand others claiming reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act.
4. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v.[1]State of Andhra Pradesh, Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra[2][3]PradeshandMohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana, thereliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil innature and there is no element of criminality therein.
5. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by respondent No.1 arepurely civil in nature and there is no element of criminality.Whetherthe respondent No.1 is entitled to claim the reliefs against thepetitioners and others or not has to be decided during the course oftrial. In such circumstances, the maintainability of the present petitionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of theconsidered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioners/respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 in DVC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitionerNos.2 and 3 are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, their presence may bedispensed with.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of petitioner Nos.2and 3. Even if the presence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is dispensedwith, no prejudice will be caused to respondent No.1.
9. Hence, the presence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who arerespondent Nos.2 and 7 in D.V.C.No.9 of 2012 on the file of theJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, is hereby dispensed with oneach and every date of adjournment. However, they shall appearbefore the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.
10. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisCriminal Petition shall stand closed.
Date:30.12.2014KH
_________________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[1]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)
[2]2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)
[3]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)