fPO×FWvPF sPFMÀePÝAÙPO EHPiSPFXP iGPLAXPNPA


aHPsPFrP-ePrP ePvhPF aMSPFE`WvPF û``utPOE`rP hPF``u`bPL``uCPFP nPLArPQ oPF ESPFSFU``udPLrP ãO÷PABPOAE`HPkPP E`HPkPPA``uSPFrP pPOL``uTP çpPOLE`tPOHPÓ÷PìkPPtPOA ãO÷PrPìpPOL E`lPËP û``uHPXPmPFz E`nPLmFZYlP kPPrP``utPO wvPOðsPFgPOYQkFÖOtPO sPFMëPOA 'sFUtPOAnFUE`WvPFrP sPFKPz'PrP
sPFhPF``uyPAEgPOtPOAbPL|

sFUtPOnFUE`WvPFrP sPFKPz sPFMëPOArP sPF``uËP uyPAgPOA``uyPA``ugPOrP E`VPFkPPAnPLA:
vhPF-umPFvhPFlP: sutanutisakhya@yahoo.com cPFlPBPOAXP: 9830753678


To print a page from this site, Haraf font has to be downloaded and saved in Windows/Fonts folder:

DOWNLOAD FONT

 




ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Dr. G. Yethirajulu, J.

Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahemad & Ors.
- Petitioners
versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
- Respondents


Crl. Petition No. 5900 of 2006

Decided on 10.4.2007

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 and 20- Cognizance of offence on complaint – Petition to quash proceedings – Allegations of neglect, cruelty and demands against petitioner – respondent husband of daughter of complainant and petitioners 2 to 10 were alleged to have abetted offence – Prayer portion of complaint revealed that reliefs were sought against 1st respondent only- No specific allegations were made against petitioners 2 to 11 and no specific relief was claimed against them – Proceedings against petitioners 2 to 11 were liable to be quashed.

Held: Under Section 22 of the Act also compensation can be awarded. From the prayer portion of the petitioner, it is revealed that the reliefs were sought against the first respondent/ first petitioner herein only. From the body of the petition also, no specific allegations were made against the respondents 2 to 11 / petitioners 2 to 11 herein except mentioning that at their instance, the first petitioner was demanding money and that he was not providing money for medical expenses disowned the liability being abetted by petitioners 2 to 10. Since no relief is claimed against petitioners 2 to 11, it is unnecessary to continue the proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner 2 to 11.

So far as the first petitioner is concerned, the entire claim is against him. Since there are allegations in the petition that he neglected to pay medical expenses and also neglected to maintain her and her children, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings against him. (Paras 7 & 8)

Result: Petition allowed.
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ch. Janardhan Reddy,
Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: P.P.
For the Respondent No. 2: C. Narender, Advocate


Copyright © 2007 Abasar.net. All rights reserved.