It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:31 pm



Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
498A acqital in 1month time 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:39 am
Posts: 182
CASE STATUS

Back

Case Details
Case Type CC
Filing No. 100548/2013 Filing date: 28-11-2013
Registration No. 100548/2013 Registration date: 30-11-2013
Case code 202101005482013

CASE STATUS
First Hearing Date 07-12-2013
Decision Date 18-12-2013
Case Status CASE DISPOSED
Nature Of Disposal Contested--ACQUITTAL
Court No & Judge 2 - I Additional Junior Civil Judge

Petitioner(s) & Advocate(s)
Petitioner - S.H.O. Women P.S.
Address - Kadapa Women P.S.
Advocate -
Respondent(s) & Advocate(s)
Respondent - Mesa Vijay
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. COlony Kadapa CIty. A.1
Advocate -

Extra parties

2) Respondent - Mesa susheela Shantha Bai
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. Colony Kadapa City. A.2
Advocate -
3) Respondent - Mesa George Peter
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. COlony Kadapa CIty. A.2
Advocate -
4) Respondent - Mesa Rajini Sujatha
Address - Kutagulla Kadiri Town Ananthapur District. A.4
Advocate -
5) Respondent - Louis Vinod Kumar
Address - Flat No. 31 Neela Vishal R.T.C Colony Thirumalagiri Secunderabad. A.5
Advocate -

ACTS
Under Act(s) DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ALONG WITH RULES AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IPC & EVIDENCE AND CRPC RELA
Under Section(s) U/sec. 498 - A,506, r/w 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.,
Subject

LOWER COURT INFORMATION
Court No & Name ---
Case No & Year ---
Case Decision Date ---

FIR DETAILS
Police Station Women Police Station, Kadapa
FIR No. 75 Year 2012


History Of Case Hearing
Regn. No. Judge
Bussiness on Date Hearing Date Purpose of Hearing
100548/2013 JFCM for Spl. Mobile Court 07-12-2013 FOR APPEARANCE
100548/2013 JFCM for Spl. Mobile Court 07-12-2013 09-12-2013 FOR APPEARANCE
100548/2013 JFCM for Spl. Mobile Court 09-12-2013 17-12-2013 SUMMONS TO WITNESSES
100548/2013 JFCM for Spl. Mobile Court 17-12-2013 18-12-2013 JUDGMENT


Orders
Order No. Order Date Order Details
1 2013-12-18 Order No.1


Writ Information
Regn. No. Appellate Case No. Appellate Authority Date of Receipt


Case Transfer Details Between The Courts
Regn. No. Transfer Date From Court No
& Judge To Court No
& Judge


judgement below:
=============
1
  IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::KADAPA
                               Present:­   Sri K. Sreeranga Raju, L.LB., 
                                                I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.
Wednesday, this the 18th day of December, 2013  
 C.C.No.548   of 2013  
Between
State: The Inspector of Police,
           Women U/G P.S., Kadapa                          …                 Complainant
− A n d ­
1. Mesa Vijay, son of George Peter, aged 30 yrs, 
− 2. Mesa Susheela Shantha Bai, aged 60 yrs, wife of George Peter, Ret. 
Teacher 
− 3. Mesha George Peter, aged 64 yrs, son of Chinnappa, Rtd Bank Employee 
− 4. Mesa Rajina Sujatha, aged 34 yrs, wife of Katagulla Prakash, Katagulla, 
Kadiri town, Ananthapur district 
− 5.  Louis Vinod Kumar, aged 32 yrs, son of George Peter, Flat No.31, Neela 
Vishal, RTC colony, Thirumalagiri, Secunderabad. 
      
Accused 
  This case coming on before me for final hearing on 15.12.2013 in the 
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri D. Reddaiah, 
Advocate for the accused, after having stood over for consideration till this 
day, this court delivered the following:­
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Women U/G P.S., filed a charge sheet against 
the accused. 
As per the averments of the charge sheet that on 2.9.2011 L.Ws.2 and 3 
performed the marriage of L.W.1 with A.1 and at the time marriage they 
presented Rs.4,00,000­00 cash and gold ornaments worth of Rs.3,00,000/­, 
household   articles   worth   of   Rs.1,00,000­00,   they   lived   happily   for   two 
months, and disputes arose between them for petty reasons. As A.1 secured 
job at Hyderabad, he shifted his family along with L.W.1 to Hyderabad, A.1 
addicted to bad vices, started harassing L.W.1 both physical and mental, she 
informed the incidents to L.Ws.2 and 3 and there was a mediation, but it was 2
futile,  and hence L.W.1 lodged a report in the police station, and L.W.8
registered   a   case   in   Crime   No.75/2012   and   took   up   investigation.     He 
examined   L.Ws.1  to   7   and  recorded  their statements  besides  visiting  the 
scene.  All the accused obtained anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble VI Additional 
District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.  After completion of investigation charge 
sheet was laid.    
2. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished as mandates 
under sec.207 Cr.P.C.
3. The accused were examined under sec.239 Cr.P.C. and explained the 
charge framed against them, for which they denied and claimed to be tried. 
4. As there is no incriminating material against the accused sec.313 
Cr.P.C. was dispensed. 
5. On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 and 2 
marked.    
6. Basing on the above made facts the point for determination is that:­ 
Whether  the   prosecution  has   proved the   offence   charged   under 
sec.498­A of I.P.C., sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act., beyond all reasonable 
doubt?
7.   POINT : ­
  Even though P.W.1 complained that she was subjected physical and 
mental harassment in the hands of the accused, her evidence before the Court 
was that as there arose some misunderstandings between her and the accused, 
she lodged Ex.P.1 report, and she is not in a position to state what were 
written in Ex.P.1, and at the request of learned A.P.P, she was declared as 
hostile and the remaining witnesses were given up by the learned A.P.P. 
8. There is nothing on record to state the prosecution has proved the 
offence charged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 
9.   In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the 3
offence under Sec.498­A of I.P.C., and are acquitted under sec.248 (1) of
Cr.P.C.   The accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under 
Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act,  and are acquitted under sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The 
accused shall furnish a bond under sec.437(a) Cr.P.C. that they shall appear 
before the Appellate Court in the event of they receives summons within six 
months from today.  
Dictated   to   the   Personal­Asst.,   transcribed   by   him,   corrected   and 
pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th 
day of December, 2013.
                                                                      
                     Sd/­ K. Sreeranga Raju 
                                                       I  ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
                                                                                   K A D A P A.
        APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
FOR    PROSECUTION                       FOR    DEFENCE
P.W.1:   P. Mesa Kalpana          N  I  L  
 
                   EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION. 
Ex.P.1:  The original complaint given by P.W.1 
Ex.P.2:  Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE
                ­ NIL ­
                           MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
­NIL­ 
     Sd/­ KSR 
                                                                                                     I  A.J.M.F.C.

ps:not my case......


Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:47 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:17 am
Posts: 603
it is possible that the case was compromised between the parties. mostly in such cases the prosecution gives up evidence of other witnesses and the de facto complainant gives vague replies in the cross examination. going to HC is time consuming ; hence such tactics are done by the PP/police and the parties to the case.


Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:25 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.