Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In 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.

See Page 5, last para…

Needless to say if any appeal is filed by any of the petitioners herein, they can file for the period beyond one month with application invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the learned Sessions Judge to entertain as it is of bonafide prosecution in this Court instead of proceeding by appeal before the Court of Sessions, within the sweep of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further, if any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions.

Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE HYD 293], [2016 CCC 1 49], [2015 ALD CRI 2 764]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110893807/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e53212e46571b56b1ea70aa

http://document.manupatra.com/ap/2001-2004/ap2015/AP20151408152002271.htm

The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In 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.

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a petition on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against the respondents (her husband and in-laws), under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant certain reliefs as mentioned therein, which was taken on file as D.V.C. NO.163 of 2008. The petitioners also filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was taken on file as D.V.C. No.10 of 2009.

Criminal Petition No.346 of 2009 is filed to quash all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereas, Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur district.

ISSUES:

Whether the Quash petition is liable to be dismissed? Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation?

DECISION:

It was held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.

Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. It was thus held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings and both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

From para 22,

If 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.

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Citations:

Other Sources:

Key Contributor:

Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

From Para 14,

14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.
ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. 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

Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd

This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.

Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 2012

Subsequent DVC is available here.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.

5. ( 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.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/

Citation:

Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.

The index page is here.

Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy Vs State Of A.P. 5 March, 2013

Posted on September 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Posted on September 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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)

Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/

Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001

Posted on September 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A knife like complainant who by her adulterous life caused mental agony and family disorder both for husband and children was shown the door by the hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this Criminal Revision on a DV Case which was allowed.

The knife was living in adultery and neglected/left the children and ultimately wanted property of the brother of husband and custody of major and married children!!

Highlight

As per the provisions of the Act, the proceedings have to be held in camera and to be tried summarily. According to the provisions of the Act, time fixed is 60 days for disposal from the date of the first hearing. This Act is to provide speedy remedy for deserving aggrieved person and for that reason, a summary enquiry is contemplated

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014

Citation: [2015 ALL M.R. (Cri.) Journal 178]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112132700/

The index page is here.

Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006

Posted on September 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

One good judgment from High Court of Andhra Pradesh which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC

Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy Vs State Of A.P. 5 March, 2013

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014

Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006