This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification
The Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)
Here is the 1990 edition of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.).
Four judgments of AP High Court that I could find related to Rule 37, are the following:
- Gadu Narayanarao and Anr Vs State Of A.P. and Anr on 3 June, 2015
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015
- T.Vinil S/O Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P. on 22 September, 2015
- P.Trivikrama Prasad Vs State Of A.P. on 29 January, 2016
You can take a look at my 498A case here, where I have used Rule 37 successfully and am filing (absent) petitions via Registered Post – Acknowledge Due to the filing section.
The Amendments made to AP Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 are listed below.
Find the Civil Rules of Practice of AP High Court here.
Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013
Another judgments from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in DVC on brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Guntamukkala Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga Nagamani Vs Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar on 19 October, 2012
Cunning knife did drama in court seeking huge alimony but learned Judges of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh showed her the door and levied costs for lying to court and filing false affidavits.
From Para 30,
On necessary analysis we find it difficult to accept these observations as it appears that the legislative intendment in framing Section 18 of HAM Act and Section 25 of HM Act are quite different. This is born out from the fact that Section 18 of HAM Act is intended for granting divorce to a wife when her marriage with her husband has been subsisting against her husband subject to the limitations provided therein, whereas Section 25 of HM Act is intended for granting maintenance to a divorced wife or husband subject to their conduct. No doubt, “wife” includes a divorced wife under normal parlance, but the question of awarding maintenance to her either as a wife or divorced wife should be within the legislative intendment or spirit. In other words, when the legislature framed Section 18 of HAM Act in the context of providing maintenance to a wife against her husband while their marriage has been subsisting, that is quite different from its intention in framing Section 25 of HM Act, the provisions of which are made applicable only to a divorced wife or husband subject to the conduct of himself or herself. The interpretation made in the decision cited to treat a wife who is not a divorcee and the wife who is a divorcee on equal footing for the purpose of awarding maintenance under Section 18 of HAM Act does not appear to be logical.
Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has penalized the Writ petitioner as she has lied that she has submitted notarized affidavits but in fact she could not prove that she did. Hence the said affidavits introduced into the Court are termed as false affidavits which contained the false averment/pleading.
Ghousia Sultana Alias Ghousia Begum And Etc. Etc. Vs Mohd. Ghouse Baig And Ors Etc. Etc. on 12 February, 1996
This is the full bench decision of AP High Court, over-ruling the decision of this Court in Smt. Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State, 1993 APLJ (Crl) 269 : (1993 Cri LJ 3162), confirming the Single bench judgment here by endorsing as below.
No non-compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be allowed, or directed to be compounded by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
Citation : 1996 (1) ALD Cri 534, 1996 (1) ALT 940, 1996 (1) ALT Cri 608, 1996 CriLJ 2973, II (1996) DMC 115
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/293319/
Annamdevula Srinivasa Rao and Anr Vs The State Of A.P. and Etc on 11 August, 1995
In this order from AP High Court, it was held that, a High Court cannot compound a non-compoundable case under section 482 CrPC.
Citation : 1995 (2) ALT Cri 447, 1995 CriLJ 3964, I (1996) DMC 239
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/228972/
