|498a Discussion Forum
|498A acqital in 1month time
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||rajendra887 [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:47 am ]|
|Post subject:||498A acqital in 1month time|
Case Type CC
Filing No. 100548/2013 Filing date: 28-11-2013
Registration No. 100548/2013 Registration date: 30-11-2013
Case code 202101005482013
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.
Respondent(s) & Advocate(s)
Respondent - Mesa Vijay
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. COlony Kadapa CIty. A.1
2) Respondent - Mesa susheela Shantha Bai
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. Colony Kadapa City. A.2
3) Respondent - Mesa George Peter
Address - Plot No. 504 Palm Grove apartment S.B.I. COlony Kadapa CIty. A.2
4) Respondent - Mesa Rajini Sujatha
Address - Kutagulla Kadiri Town Ananthapur District. A.4
5) Respondent - Louis Vinod Kumar
Address - Flat No. 31 Neela Vishal R.T.C Colony Thirumalagiri Secunderabad. A.5
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.,
LOWER COURT INFORMATION
Court No & Name ---
Case No & Year ---
Case Decision Date ---
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
Order No. Order Date Order Details
1 2013-12-18 Order No.1
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
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
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.
− 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.
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
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
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
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
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
ps:not my case......
|Author:||ganeshrao [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:25 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: 498A acqital in 1month time|
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.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group