JAYANTHI AMARESWARI Vs. JAYANTHI SUNDARA LAKSHMI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
JAYANTHI (GUNTUR) AMARESWARI
JAYANTHI SUNDARA LAKSHMI
Click here to view full judgement.
Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J. -
(1.)Second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner and third petitioner is the father of petitioners 1 and 2. One J. Ramakrishna is the husband of the first petitioner. There are some family disputes between the first petitioner and her husband, as a result of which the husband of the first petitioner kept his son at Visakhapatnam in her parental house. The first petitioner who is working at A.P. Bhavan, Delhi went to Visakhapatnam and took away her child to New Delhi. In connection with the same, the first respondent filed a Criminal complaint against the petitioners 1 and 2 under Secs. 447, 506, 511 r / w. Sec. 209 IPC on the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No. 163 / 89 but the same proceedings were quashed as per the orders of this court dt. October 3, 1989. While so the first petitioner's husband Ramakrishna filed O.P.No.25/88 on the file of the I Addl. Judge, Visakhapatnam for the custody of the child and the said case is pending,
(2.)The case of the 1st respondent is that the first petitioner addressed a letter to the Deputy Divisional Engineer (Telephones) Visakhapatnam imputing immoral conduct to the first respondent and it was further averred that petitioners 1 to 3 came to the office of the Telecom District Engineer, Visakhapatnam on March, 25, 1989 and scolded the first respondent with scandalous words. Allleging that the averments made in the said letter hurt her character and reputation in the office and further alleging that petitioners 1 to 3 came to the office of the Telecom District Engineer, Visakhapatnam on March, 25, 1989 scolded her with scandalous words, the first respondent filed C.C.693 / 89 on the file of the 9th Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam under Sec. 500 I.P.C. Alleging that the allegation made in the complaint in C.C. No. 693 / 89 on the file of the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam do not make out an offence under Sec. 500 I.P.C. the petitioner filed the present criminal petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the C.C. 693/89 on the file of the 9th Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
(3.)Mr. Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the averments in the complaint petition in C.C. No. 693 / 89 it was averred that the petitioners 1 to 3 went to the office of the Telecom District Engineer, Visakhapatnam on March 25, 1989 and scolded the first respondent with scandalous words, the actual words used are not mentioned in the complaint petition in C.C.No.693/89 and consequently in so far as the said incident is concerned, namely, the incident dt. March 25, 1989 is concerned C.C. 693/89 be quashed. Sri Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the averments made in the letter written by the petitioners to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Visakhapatnam will come within the four corners of exceptions 8 and 9 to Sec. 499 I.P.C. and consequently the proceedings in C.C. No. 693 / 89 on the file of the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam be quashed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.