Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
K. Kamalamma - Appellant
Versus
Chakali Saraswathi - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 591 of 2020
Decided On : 28-01-2020
Gajanand Chakravarthi, Advocate
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Criminal Petition - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Criminal Petition - Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the identity of the petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 is not in dispute - Though the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking dispensation of the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court on every date of adjournment - Held, Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 in DVC on the file is hereby dispensed with while permitting them to mark their appearance through their counsel, except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the said Court - However, the dispensation of personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner-respondent No.2 before the trial Court in the above DVC is rejected - Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT
G. Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.04 of 2017 on the file of the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Vikarabad.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a petition against the petitioners herein (respondents 1 to 5) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. Though the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking dispensation of the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court on every date of adjournment. However, he submits that the 2nd petitioner (respondent No.2) would represent the case on behalf of the other respondents before the trial Court in the above DVC.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the identity of the petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 is not in dispute, their presence in the above DVC may not be necessary on every date of adjournment.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 (respondents 1 and 3 to 5) in DVC No.04 of 2017 on the file of the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Vikarabad. is hereby dispensed with while permitting them to mark their appearance through their counsel, except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the said Court. However, the dispensation of personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner-respondent No.2 before the trial Court in the above DVC is rejected.
6. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
