Allowed

Chikoti Rama and Another v. the State of Ap., and Another

Telangana HC10 Feb 2022CRLP/11272/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed proceedings against two accused (relatives of the main guilty accused) in a dowry harassment case, finding no prima facie evidence of their involvement beyond participating in mandatory family reconciliation processes.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings pending against petitioners accused as Nos.6 and 7 in CC No.552 of 2012 at Warangal are quashed.

Chikoti Rama and Another Vs the State of Ap., and Another — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11272 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chikoti Rama, W/o Srinivasa, aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Elkathurthi Village and Mandal Karimnagar District

¶8

Chikoti Srinivas. S/o Laxminarayana, aged 50 years, Occ: Govt. Employee R/o Elkathurthi Village and Mandal Karimnagar District

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 6 & 7

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public^prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶12

Chinthala Sunitha, W/o Praveen, aged 22 yeas, Ryo Chagallu Village Station Ghanpur N,4andal, Warangal District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased lo call for the records relating to the CC No.553/20'12 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Warangal, Warangal District and quash the proceedings in CC No.553/2012.

¶15

CRL.P.M.P. NO: 10134 OF 2013

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in CC No.553/2012 on the file of the court of the lV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, Warangal District.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.^prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Srinivas Kapatia, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: OROER

¶19

HONOU?ABLE^{DT, JUSTICE CHILI.AK.JR SUMALATHA}

¶20

IRIMINAL PETITION^{No 11272OF 2013}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This letition^{is filed underSection 482 Cr 'P C seeking} the Court^{o quash all further proceedings in C C No 553 of} 2Ol2 tnat^{; re pending against the petitioners who are arrayed} as accuse(^{Nos.6 and 7 before the Court of IV Additional} Judicial^{Mr gistrateof First Class, Warangal'}

¶23

Hearr the^{submission of Sri A' Prabhakar Rao' learned} counsel ap:earing^{for the petitioners, and learned Assistant} Public Pror ecutor,^{who is representingthe first respondent'} Though Sr Srinivas^{Kapatia,Advocate, is on record for the} 2nd responr ent,^{he failed to submit his contentions'}

¶24

Lear :d counsel^{for the petitioners submits that the 1st} petitioner, vho is^{arrayed as accusedNo 6, is the sister of the} mother-in- rw of^{the de} /acto^{complainant and the 2nrt} petitioner, vho is arrayed^{as accusedNo 7, is the husbal-rd of} ,r'r. 1sr pet tioner^{and they are no way connected with the} family affa^{"s of the de} facto^{complainantand her husband'} and only^br cause^{the petitioners are the relativesof the other} accused, t tey are^{implicatedinthis case with omnibus} aliegations and^{therefore,the proceedingsare liable to be} quashed.

¶25

On tte other hand,^{learnedAssistant PublicProsecutor} submits tf 1t^{when police have called for counselling,the}

¶26

petitioners attended the counselling along with other accused and when elders called the petitioners for panchayat, they attended the panchayat along with other accused, which goes to show that they are involved in the family affairs and therefore, there are no grounds to quash.

¶27

ln the light of the said contentions and rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶28

Whether there exists any psttJiable ground to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.553 of 2012 that are pending against the petitioners before the Court of N Addtttonal Judiciat Magistrate o/ Firsl Class, Warartgal as prayed for.

¶29

The contents of the complaint that were presented to police by the 2"d respondent, in brief, are that her marriage with the 1"t accused was perl'ormed in the year 201 I and during the time of the marriage, obliging the demaad of her husband and her in-laws, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was given as dowry, besides two tolas of gold. She was looked after well by her husband and in-laws for a period of two months. Subsequently, on the ground that she is not tall and that he did not like her and if he had married another girl, he would have got more dowry, her husband started harassing her. The said harassment was made along with her in-laws, her brother-in-law, her sister-in-larn', the petitioners herein and others. She was demanded by all of them to bring Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. In spite of counselling, the matter could not be settled. These allegations formed basis for police to register a case and file charge ,sheet

¶30

subsequen.ly. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 2n,r petitioner is a teacher and the l"r petitioner ; I the wife of the 2n(r petitioner and thev do not reside at tle place where accused No.1, who is the husband of the de f rcfo complainant, and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in laws of the de /acto complainant, reside and therefore, tlrey have nothing to do with their family affairs, but only be< ause they are related to the other accused, the de facto^{compl,. inant} has roped them making false allegar ions.

¶31

7, A meti :ulous perusal of the complaint goes to show that the demand for dowry was made b-v- the husband and in-laws of the de fa< fo complainant. She did not averr that the said demand for r owry was made by the petitioners herein. [f the demand of d )wry was not made and the petitioners had not involved at ti at time, their involvement at the later time, that too, demandr:rg additional dowry becomes highly doubtful. The contents of the complaint justify the submission of the learned counrel for petitioners that the de facto complainant tried to initr rte criminal proceedings against the prrme accused and r lso their relatives. Only because the petitioners have participa ted in the counselling and the panchayat, it cannot be hel 1 that they have committed the offence. As rightly pointec out by learned counsel for the petitioners, if police summo rs for counselling and when a request was made by the ranchatdars to participate in the panchayat, inevitably the relatives would participate. That does not

¶32

¶33

mean^{that theyhavecommittedthe offence' This Court does} not find^{any such allegations whichat leaslpnma facie show} that the^{petitioners have committed the offencespunishable} und.er^{Section 498-AIPC andSections3 and 4 of the Dowry} Prohibition^{Act. Therefore'this Courtis of the view that the} petitioners^{cannot besubjected tofurther criminal} proceedings.^{Thus' the request soughtforis justifiable'}

¶34

Resultantly,^{the Criminal Petitionis allowed' All further} proceedings^{that are pending againstthe petitioners whoare} Nos.6^{and 7 inC C No'552 of 2Ol2} arrayed^{as accused} of the^{Court of lV Additional Judicial} pending^{on the file} Magistrate^{of First Class'Warangalare herebYquashed'}

¶35

Pending^{MiscellaneousPetitions, if anY, shail alsostand}

¶36

closed.

¶37

,TRUE COPY//

¶38

SD/- I. NAGA^LAKSHMI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR Q---' SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Court^{of thelV Additional JudicialFirstClass l/agistrateat Warangal'} Warangal District.

¶41

2, The Station^{HouseOfficer, Ghanpur (W) Police Station' Warangal Urban District}

¶42

One CC^{to Sri A. PrabhakarRao,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶43

One CC^{to Sri Srinivas Kapatia, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶44

5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthestateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies

¶46

One Spare^CoPY gbr

s6,,

HIGH COUR'

DATED: 1010'.12022

t E l,\D

ORDER

CRL.P.No.11i72 of 2013

¶53

ALLOW!NG TIIE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶54

k*
q\r'

¶55

Chikoti Rama and Another v. the State of Ap., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikoti Rama and Another v. the State of Ap., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ghouse Nakshabandi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Nb.Ramaiah Vs Kaushal Kishore and Another

T.Karunaka Raju Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and 3 Others

Mahboob Bee (A-2), Jeedimetla and Anr., Vs Mehmooda Begum, Sec-Bad and Anr, Rep Pp.

B.Tirumalesh Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Inspector of Police

Thoutam Sukendranath Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another