Telangana High Court
Nooty Sindhu Sharma vs Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu on 30 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10384 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the order dated 07.08.2024 in M.P.No.300 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2024 passed by the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed D.V.C.No.365 of 2019, seeking maintenance and various other reliefs against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, in which Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2021 was filed by the respondents under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court') vide order dated 27.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Crl.A.No.35 of 2024 and also filed M.P.No.300 of 2024 on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, 'the appellate Court'), 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10384 of 2024 seeking to stay all further proceedings in D.V.C.No.365 of 2019 before the trial Court and after hearing both sides, the appellate Court granted stay of orders in Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2021 vide order dated 07.08.2024. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 in M.P.No.300 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2024 passed by the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri Phanindra Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Apurva M Gokhale, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4 - State. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that basing on the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 the proceedings in D.V.C. are stayed before the trial Court. He further contended that even though there is no stay of proceedings in D.V.C, the respondents misrepresented the trial Court and hence, requested this Court to set 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10384 of 2024 aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 and direct the trial Court to dispose of the D.V.C expeditiously. He further contended that though the respondents filed M.P.No.300 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2024 on the file of appellate Court, seeking to stay all further proceedings in D.V.C before the trial Court, the appellate Court allowed the petition by granting stay of orders dated 27.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.365 of 2019, which was filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and he further contended that there is no stay in D.V.C. Therefore, he seeks to quash the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 and direct the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the D.V.C.365 of 2019.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 admitted that there is no stay in D.V.C.No.365 of 2019. He further contended that the trial Court will dispose of the D.V.C after conducting full-fledged trial and upon careful consideration of the material available on record and interference of this Court, at this juncture, is 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10384 of 2024 unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel, having considered the material available on record, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to dispose of the D.V.C.No.365 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is further directed to send only files pertaining to Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions to the appellate Court but not the main case file of D.V.C.No.365 of 2019.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 30.09.2024.
krl