Criminal Petition filed to quash FIR for dowry harassment (Section 49BA IPC) was dismissed. Court held FIR was not in abuse of process as allegations disclosed cognizable offence requiring investigation.
Criminal Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed. FIR remains valid for investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1656 OF2020
Between:
Rathulavath Bheemla, S/o.Narayana,Age 38 years,Occ' Employee,Fl/o'Pochamma ciiioa ininoj, H/o.ci.rederpallyViilage,vetdandaMandal, NagarkurnoolDist.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED/RESPONDENTlN l'A'Nos'2& 3 of 2020
AND
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONERlN l'A'Nos'2& 3 of 2020
Petitionunder Section 482 of Cr'PC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Court may be pleased to callfor the recordsin FlR No 162120lS on the file of the S H O ' EchodaPolice Station,Adilabad District and quashthe same in so far as the petitioner/ accused as the sameis abuseof processof law and pass such other orderorders as this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and properin the circumstances of the case'
l.A, NO:1OF2020
ng thatin the circumstancesstated Petitionunder Section 482 of Cr'P'Cprayi ion, theHigh Courtmaybe Pleased n theMemorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetit arrestof the petitioner /accusedin togrant stayof all further proceedingsincluding a PoliceStation,pending disposal of FIR No.162i2018 on the file of the S H'O ' Echod rder ororders as this Hon'ble Court the aloneCriminal Petition and Pass such othero may deemfit and properin the circumstances of the case'
l.A.NO:2OF2020
the circumstancesstated Petitionunder Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in igh CourtmaY be Pleased in theMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition'theH n in FIRNo.'162 of 2018 of topermit the petitioner herein to file the compromise petitio P.S.Echoda of Adilabad District
o 3 OF 2
Section482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstancesstated Petitionunder of Groundsof Criminal Petition'the High Court may be pleased in the Memorandum
2
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Ganesh, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Abhilash Sontake, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION No,1656 OF2O2O
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short,'Cr.P,C.'), is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking toquash theproceedings against him in Crime No.162 of2018 ofEchoda Police Station, AdilabadDistrict, registered for the offence underSection4984 IPC'
\
Section 49BA IPC and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
"When a prayer for quashing the FIR is nade by the alleged accused and the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.p.C., onty has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disctose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the attegations in the FIR."'
In the instant case, a perusal of the subject report dated 03.09.2018, reveals that there are allegations of dowry harassment by the petitioner,/accused, who is the husband of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Therefore, when there is req u is ite information to register the subject F.I. R against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 49BA IpC, issuance of subject FIR, cannot be faulted. Furthermore, as the allegations made in the. subject FIR disclose commission of offence under Section 4gBA IpC, it is not appropriate to concede the request of the petitio n erla ccused. The investigating authority has to investigate into the said offence in accordance with law and file charge-sheet/final report, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, there a re no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused.
'etR 2o2l sc tgt8
/
As a sequel, miscellaneousPetitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Petitionshall stand dismissed,
SD/.K.SAILESHI
ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
//TRUECOPY//
eP
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
X.'
HIGH COURT
DATED: 01t10t2021
ORDER
1ne s lrir! '{
oo 2t 0[T 2Cel
*
CRLP.No.1656 of 2O2O
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.
%*,o
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR alleging Dowry Harassment under Section 49BA IPC should be allowed.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 49BA IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶33
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rathulavath Bheemla
The State of Telangana
J. Ashwini
SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
