Interim Stay is granted on DVC Proceedings in this case by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Highlight of the case: 19 Respondents are arrayed as accused!!!
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree on 18 July, 2014Here is the status of this case, as on the date of this posting.
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree - Case StatusThis is a writ petition filed with Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which this judgment is issued under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The self-acquired property of son was ordered to be transferred to his mother by Tribunal. But then in this judgment, Hon’ble High Court held that the fact remains that no transfer of property in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3, and that too after commencement of the Act, has taken place. As such, no return of transfer of property is made out.
M.P. Tej Babu vs The State Of Telangana and 2 others on 4 March, 2016In this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions in the petitions contesting the maintainability of 482 CrPC quash in DV Cases.
Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015In this well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that in addition to the approach courts should take while considering whether the main Act as well as its amendment are prospective or retrospective in effect.
From para 22,
Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009If a statute does not provide an offender liable to any penalty (conviction or sentence) in favour of the state, it can be said that legislation will be classified as remedial statute. Remedial statutes are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. A remedial statute receives a liberal construction. In case of remedial statutes, doubt is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Whenever a legislation prescribes a duty or penalty for breach of it, it must be understood that the duty is prescribed in the interest of the community or some part of it and the penalties prescribed as a sanction for its purpose. None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences.
A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.
From Para 13,
The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana on 16 February, 2015
This is the earlier false 498A case that was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012Subsequent DVC is available here.
This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC of relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 20155. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.
Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that before issuing Non bailable warrants, magistrate has to exhaust the options of summons and bailable warrants to secure the presence of accuse.
Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy Vs State Of A.P. 5 March, 2013
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,
In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011
Case Details:
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)Hon’ble High Court of AP has held that, the High Court, by exercising its inherent powers can quash the F.I.R. or Investigation in appropriate cases following the tests laid down in Bhajanlal’s case by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001