seeking to permit them to leave India for abroad i.e. to go to Abu Dabi, for a period of six months from 20.1.2013, to attend delivery of their younger daughter-in-law.- The aforesaid crime is registered for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The purpose of their proposed visit to Abu Dabi is to attend delivery of their younger daughter-in-law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment for allowing the petitioners to go abroad. But, in view of the fact that case is pending, petition can be allowed on conditions.


CRLP 41 / 2013

CRLPSR 94 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SURABHI RAMUDU, & ANOTHER,  VSTHE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., & ANOTHER,
PET.ADV. : LAKSHMIRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.)DISTRICT:  CUDDAPAH
FILING DATE:  02-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  ORD
REG. DATE    :   02-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU    

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.  41 OF 2013

ORDER:

          The petitioners, who are A.2 and A.3 in crime no.302 of 2012 of Rayachoty police station, Kadapa District, filed this Criminal Petition seeking to permit them to leave India for abroad i.e. to go to Abu Dabi, for a period of six months from 20.1.2013, to attend delivery of their younger daughter-in-law.
2.       Heard both sides.

3.       The aforesaid crime is registered for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.    After registration of crime, police examined 4 witnesses.   The petitioners are parents-in-law of the second respondent/defacto complainant.   The purpose of their proposed visit to Abu Dabi is to attend delivery of their younger daughter-in-law.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment for allowing the petitioners to go abroad.  But, in view of the fact that case is pending, petition can be allowed on conditions.

4.       Therefore, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioners to visit Abu Dabi on condition of their executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti along with an undertaking that they shall return India on or before 20.07.2013.  The first petitioner shall also deposit original title deeds relating to land admeasuring 231.11 square yards in plot no.134 covered by Sy. Nos. 473 and 460 (old survey no.396), Sub Division Nos. 460/1, 460/2, 460/3 and 460/4 of Dinnedevarapadu Village and grampanchayat of Kurnool district, into the court.

5.       The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, ordered.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
   

           ________________

(K.C.BHANU, J.)

4.1.2013
DRK


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU









CRIMINAL PETITION NO.  41 OF 2013










           Date: 4.1.2013


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.