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.
Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification
Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014
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
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
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
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006
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.
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
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.
Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015
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.
C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998
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.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017
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.
Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014
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.
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
