Dismissed

Sri. Ronak Ashok Raysoni and 3 others v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC6 Jan 2022CRLP/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations. The Court upheld the petition and directed the Investigating Officer to strictly follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C., referencing Arnesh Kumar, and prohibited the arrest of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings quashed; investigation directed to proceed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. without arrest of petitioners.

Sri. Ronak Ashok Raysoni and 3 others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYOERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1580 F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

1' Sri. Ronak Ashok Raysoni and 3 0thers, s/o. Ashok Raysoni, Aged 30 years, occ. Business, Ail Fi/o..H.No106, 1st Floor, Vishal Tower, Sf,"t fr/ofr SnrnLove tane, _^{Byculla East Mumbai,} Mahaiashtra.

¶9

' Ri:.i..:1,"J,,[Er::1,r..,"^{LarcnanJii RaysoniAsed 52 years, occ.Business.} Al Vishat Tower, Shet rr/oti Sr,rf,Gr! I#,^"g;rrr, e.rt

¶10

Mumbai, n "nrrujl,ljoor,

¶11

' ifll ,i,.,ili'j.f;y::l'^{w/o Ashok Ravsoni,} tq"g !o^years, occ. Housewire. A1 Mumbai, rr,,"n.rr.,rl,ljoor,^{Vishatrowei.Sher v"tiinjni"r"_#u,,Eilirru} errt

¶12

t R,: Tii,lil;::lI?:",,^{s/o Ashok*urcon,,lq9q} 28 years,occ Business Ail rr,lumOai,.-rrrfa"n"ar..,l,lj"",^{Vishal Tower.Snut rrloji} Srr^rn,i"r" ,I"", Bil,l,n ar.,

¶13

AND

¶14

,..PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4

¶15

, ll:l: of Tetangana and another, Represented ,

¶16

^ court for the s'iate or r erangana, Hyderabarr by the Public Prosecutor, High z. Smt. priyanka Jain R/" H ffiut:;1,)#'i,,1;:X[f l,TX,iJ,.]"J,1;.1g* 2€ years, occ Housewire Hyderabad. -r^{I rer rrv !''/o,} +tn Floor, Sriram Compler, Sn.rturt-#,

¶17

... RES POND ENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶18

petition under Secti in the Memorandum of oQ of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated "non to quash the crime ,o.na"not of crjminal Petition' the High court may o" 0,""."0 police station, Hyderabad. i1 of 2021 pending on the file of porice Station women t.A NO:2 OF 2022

¶19

petition under Secr 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memoranor, or c.jlo ;:Lil:'TI#TT::"',i;T:l;,i::T"H::1;ffi^"ffi .;X; station women Police Station, Hyderabad, pending disposat of the criminat ,";ffi This petition comir croundsorcriminrr ;;;;lt on for hearing'upon perusing the Memorandum of Advocate ,n" ,",n".11"': :" hearing the arguments of sri pRAMoD SrNGH ", Prosecutor on beharr or tne Responoent No. r and none ror,,.," nurrolll"tiij;t"t

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE H(,NOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN}

¶22

cl'JMINAL^{PETITIONNo158of 2022}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This^{Cr minal Petition} 1S filed under^{Section 482} Cr.P.C.,^{to qurshthe proceedings in Crime No 961 of 2027 of} W.P.S.^{D.D. I'olice Station' Hyderabad' registeredfor the} offences^{underSections 498-Aof IPC and Sections3 and 4 of} Dowry^{Prohibi'ion Act Thepetitioners herernare ttccused} Nos.1^{to 4 in ti e said Crime'}

¶25

Heard^{ler rrned counselfor the petitionersarrd learned} Public^{Prosect tor' Perusedthe Record' With thef consent} this^{Criminal P:tition is disposed of' at the admission stage'}

¶26

1 \

¶27

The^{marr iage o1 1st petitiofler $rith the 2"a respondent} was^{performel on25'll-2O2O' Itappearsthereafter} matrimonial^{lisputes arosebetweenthem' The 2nd} respondent^{ha ; narrated the entire facts in the complaint'} Thus,^{there ar. several factual aspects to be investigatedinto} by the^{Investig rting Officer during the course of investigation} including^the '^{llegationsmade by the 2ntr ls5pondent in the} complaint^{date'C 26-1 1-2021'The punishmentprescribedfor} the^{offences ai eged againstthe petitioners herein is below 7} yea-rs^{and tb e disputebetweenl"tpetitionerand2"d} respondent^{are matrimonialdisputes'}

¶28

¶29

Sri Pramod Singh,^{learnedcounselfor the petitioners} would submit that^{the l"t petitioneris ready to take the 2"d} respondent to^{his companyand she is not willing'}

¶30

Considering the^{said facts and also the fact that} petitioner No.2 to 4^{are parents and brother of 1"t petitioner /} A- 1 , this Criminal^{Petition is disposed of, directingthe} Investigating^{Officerin Crime No.961 of 2O2l of W'P'S' D'D'} Police Station, to^{strictly follow the procedure prescribedin} Section 41-A^{of Cr.P C' and aiso the guidelines issued by the} Honble Apex Court^{in Arnesh Kumarv' State of Biharl'Till} completion of investigation^{and filing of final report'the} Investigating Officer^{is further directed not to arrest the} petitioners herein. The^{petitioners shall cooperate with the} Investigating Officer^{byfurnishinginformationand} documents as^{sought by him in concluding the investigation'}

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending in}

¶32

the criminal petiti on sha-ll stand^dismissed'

'1zor11^{a scczrs}

//TRUE COPYi/

SD/.L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xlll Additional Chief fVletropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶42

One CC to SRI PRAMOD SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

¶44

One spare Copy

TL TR

$<sup>{

'.,.--..,-

,-=:=..----==-----.4*-":-

HIGH COURT

DATED:06101|i 022

ORDER

a7s <br>.< ?;(
l
1t ,tult 20??

¶53

CRLP.No.158 o'2022

¶54

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.}

Sri. Ronak Ashok Raysoni and 3 others v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ronak Ashok Raysoni and 3 others v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eruku HariShankar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Noorjahan Mohanma Hanif Sayyad Vs The State of Telangana

Kotha Janardhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Chelikanti Raja Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Uppu Kumaraswamy Vs State of Telangana

Magilla palli Adhinarayana Vs State of Telangana