Krishna Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor and Another

Krishna Reddy and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 23, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/950026

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/950026
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: K.G. Shankar
Decided On: Aug 23, 2012
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.10584 of 2009
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Reddy and Others

Respondent

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor and Another

Excerpt

.....quashment of crl.m.p.no.1815 of 2009 on the file of the judicial magistrate of first class, bodhan, nizamabad district. the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. she filed a case against the petitioners as well as against her husband under section 406 ipc as well as under section 6 of the dowry prohibition act, 1961. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the accused 2 to 5 in the case, is that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners and that the complaint inasmuch as it relates to the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 2. the petitioners 1 to 4 are accused 2 to 5 in crl.m.p.no.1815 of 2009. the 1st petitioner is the father-in-law of the 2nd respondent. the 2nd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. the 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. the 4th petitioner is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. 3. contending that the 2nd respondent lodged first information report in crime no.159 of 2008 under section 498-a, ipc against her husband as well as against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this petition would be tantamount to double jeopardy and would be tantamount to abuse of process of law. the learned counsel for the petitioners invited me to dispose of the petition on merits. 4. i am afraid that this is not the stage at which the provisions under section 482 cr.p.c deserve to be invoked. the 2nd respondent already filed a private complaint in crl.m.p.no.1815 of 2009. the relief sought by the 2nd respondent, however, is to refer the case to the police under section 156 (3) cr.p.c. the said petition has not been disposed of by the trial court. the petitioners herein have an opportunity to appear before the trial court and seek for the dismissal of crl.m.p.no.1815 of 2009. 5. there is no dispute that this court has indeed jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c to interfere in the matter. however, where an alternative remedy.....

Full Judgment

The petitioners seek for the quashment of Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She filed a case against the petitioners as well as against her husband under Section 406 IPC as well as under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the accused 2 to 5 in the case, is that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners and that the complaint inasmuch as it relates to the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

2. The petitioners 1 to 4 are accused 2 to 5 in Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009. The 1^st petitioner is the father-in-law of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 2^nd respondent. The 4^th petitioner is the husband of the 3^rd petitioner.

3. Contending that the 2^nd respondent lodged First Information Report in Crime No.159 of 2008 under Section 498-A, IPC against her husband as well as against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this petition would be tantamount to double jeopardy and would be tantamount to abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited me to dispose of the petition on merits.

4. I am afraid that this is not the stage at which the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C deserve to be invoked. The 2^nd respondent already filed a private complaint in Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009. The relief sought by the 2^nd respondent, however, is to refer the case to the Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The said petition has not been disposed of by the trial Court. The petitioners herein have an opportunity to appear before the trial Court and seek for the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009.

5. There is no dispute that this Court has indeed jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere in the matter. However, where an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners seeking for the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, I consider that it would not be just and proper to interfere with the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court for appropriate relief in Crl.M.P.No.1815 of 2009.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Krishna Reddy and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by ... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.G. Shankar