Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006

Posted on September 16, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this quash judgment, hon’ble High Court of AP has held that

Learned Counsel would submit that the specific allegations made in the complaint, against the petitioners herein, relate to the demand of dowry attracting the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 10, of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, to contend that since the allegation of demand of dowry against respondents 2 to 4 are at the time of the marriage which, even according to the complaint, took place in December 1996 and as the complaint was filed eight years thereafter in December 2004, it was barred by limitation.

And the Shri Ramesh Ranganathan J (as his Lorship was called then) held that,

There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year.

Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006

Shri Ramesh Rangarajan is the ‘Longest serving Acting CHief Justice of AP High Court. Read article here.

Jaggavarapu Satishkumar Reddy and 3 Otrs Vs The State Of AP On 20 February, 2018

Posted on September 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A quash judgment here from High Court of A.P. wherein the request was to quash a false 498A IPC case with a argument that, “the allegations do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 and that respondent No.2-defacto complainant deserted her husband (petitioner-A.1) long back and that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.”

Instead of quashing the case, the judge ordered to go for Discharge at lower court itself.

And the judge gave this order in Para 7 and 8,

As far as allegations against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4, the court below has to decide truth or otherwise of the allegations. The petitioners-A.1 to A.4 are at liberty to file an application for discharge in accordance with law, and on filing of such application, the Court below has to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 that petitioner-A.4 is aged 88 years and is suffering from health problems and not in a position to move. Taking into consideration of age and health condition of the petitioner-A.4, her presence is dispensed with in the proceedings before the Court below subject to her complying with Section 205 Cr.P.C.. As and when her presence is specifically required, the Court below may order her presence. As far as other petitioners-A.1 to A.3 are concerned, in case of any difficulty in attending the Court, they are at liberty to invoke the relevant provisions of law.

Jaggavarapu Satishkumar Reddy and 3 Otrs Vs The State Of Ap On 20 February, 2018

Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015

Posted on September 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cancelled the bail earlier granted to the Accused, on the baseless and unproven allegations that “some unknown persons on their behalf started threatening the defacto complainant with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise in the case“.

Hon’ble AP High Court has rightly held that the above is not a ground that can be relied upon for Bail cancellation under CrPC 439, as the said allegations are at that point in time are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.

…and…

By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.

Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015

C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

Posted on September 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In line with Gurbaksh Singh case here, AP High Court also delivered this judgment holding that

From Para 21,

It is also required to notice that an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case may be can be filed only after the arrest of the accused person or detained without a warrant. It would not be possible for any accused to file any application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC while the operation of the order under Section 438 Cr.PC is in force. Under those circumstances, the question of directing the accused person to apply for and obtain a regular bail even while the directions issued in exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.PC are in operation may become difficult and such application may not be maintainable.

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then held,

In Para 22,

On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge:
(1) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.PC may direct the release of the accused person in a given case only for a specific period and direct the accused person to apply for and obtain regular bail. This would necessarily mean that the operation of the order would come to an end immediately after the specified time and the accused person has to necessarily surrender or get arrested so as to enable the accused person to file an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case maybe.
(2) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and discretion under Section 438 of the Code can restrict the operation of directions issued under the said provision at the initial stage and extend the same until further orders;
(3) The Court exercising the power and jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is entitled to issue necessary directions directing release of the accused person in the event of his or her arrest without specifying any period; and
(4) The power and jurisdiction of this Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code is not limited or circumscribed in any manner whatsoever requiring to limit the operation of the directions to release the accused person in the event of his or her arrest.

C.H. Siva Prasad And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 13 August, 1998

Citations: [2

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Posted on September 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the High Court cannot direct the police not to arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation just because they pleaded to be innocents, especially when it held that it is not inclined to interfere on the ground that it was not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case.

Interesting:
It is a well-settled proposition of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Posted on September 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on judgment of AP High Court here, this judgment has quashed the entire proceedings under CrPC 482, on the A3 (sister of husband) as there are omnibus allegations on the accused A3.

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Citations: [2015 ALT CRI 3 478]

Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014

Posted on September 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in this judgment, reminded about the menace of roping in all relatives of husband into false litigation while granting anticipatory bail to relatives of husband.

Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/tahmeena-kaleem-others-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh/86139

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Tahmeena-Kaleem-and-Others-Versus-State-of-Andhra-Pradesh-2014-01-17

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2016

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the order by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was set aside by the hon’ble Supreme Court here.

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2016

Shaik Asma & Anr Vs State of AP on 08 February, 2017

Posted on August 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though Sessions judge convicted the mother and father of the sex victim for giving inconsistent evidence under IPC 193 read with CrPC 344, Hon’ble High Court of AP did a U turn and modified the order that,

Therefore, keeping in mind the fate of children, who attained marriageable age, I deem it appropriate to set aside the substantivesentence of imprisonment imposed against the first appellant, who is a woman, while confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- and thesubstantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the secondappellant is reduced to 15 days, while confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- as the alleged perjury appears to be intentional but toprotect the children’s future to wipe out the stigma on the chastity ofdaughter.

Shaik Asma & Anr Vs State of AP on 08 February, 2017

Read the Sessions Judge Order here.

P.Parameshwar Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana on 10 August, 2015

Posted on August 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that,

The invocation of jurisdiction under extraordinary powers vested in this Court cannot be allowed to a person, who comes to the Court with unclean hands or suppressing material facts in order to gain advantage. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the lethargy or inaction on the part of the Government Officers. If the petitioner is really aggrieved, this Court will extend its helping hand in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India or/and the laws framed under it. But, this Court will never encourage misuse of process of this Court. This Court cannot be used for the purpose of getting interim orders to protect an unlawful need/demand of the litigants who are greedy. This is a sacred institution and it cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.

Finally,

In view of the suppression of fact of dismissal of W.P.No.25217 of 2003 on 16.11.2009, and not disclosing complete facts with regard to the case of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.

P.Parameshwar Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana on 10 August, 2015

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

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

Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006

Jaggavarapu Satishkumar Reddy and 3 Otrs Vs The State Of AP On 20 February, 2018

Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015

C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2016

Shaik Asma & Anr Vs State of AP on 08 February, 2017

P.Parameshwar Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana on 10 August, 2015