Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application.- The petitioner is the mother of the de facto complainant and Section 498-A of IPC is applicable when there is a cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application. Similarly the question of demanding dowry under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act does not arise. But the allegation is that on 24.07.2012, the present petitioner came from Kuwait and allegedly beat the Panaboyina Penchalaiah with a stool, as a result, he sustained bleeding injury. So therefore, that allegation made out a prima-facie offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC against the petitioner.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


CRIMINAL PETITION No.934 OF 2013


ORDER:
         
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, Y.S.R Kadapa District which was taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 324, 498-A, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.       Heard.

3.       The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the petitioner is the mother of the respondent No.2. At the time of respondent No.2’s marriage, she was given 20 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.2,50,000/-(rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) towards dowry by her parents; that after having lead a marital life for two years, the husband of respondent No.2 started harassing for extra money/dowry, then respondent No.2 was given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) by her parents for establishing a paint shop in order to enable her husband to eke out his livelihood; that after few days, he turned the name board of the shop as it suffered losses and that again after few days, he started harassing respondent No.2 both mentally and physically and demanded for extra money/dowry and that her parents gave another sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of sumo to eke out livelihood and that after sometime, he lost that sumo also and that even then he did not mend his ways and on continuous harassment, her parents got conducted a panchayat(village Court) and tried to pacify him and even after then, he has not chosen to correct himself.

4.       The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act have no application to the case of the present petitioner and therefore the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court. 

5.       The petitioner is the mother of the de facto complainant and Section 498-A of IPC is applicable when there is a cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband.  Since petitioner is mother of the de facto complainant, Section 498-A of IPC has no application. Similarly the question of demanding dowry under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act does not arise.  But the allegation is that on 24.07.2012, the present petitioner came from Kuwait and allegedly beat the Panaboyina Penchalaiah with a stool, as a result, he sustained bleeding injury.  So therefore, that allegation made out a prima-facie offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC against the petitioner.

5.       Therefore, prima facie offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act have no application to the petitioner. However, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

6.       Therefore, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the charge sheet for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Act and the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Miscellaneous Petitions if any pending, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

______________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

06.02.2013
scs/ksm

 

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.

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.

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