Dismissed

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022CRLP/2558/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment matter, finding strong prima facie evidence against the petitioners despite allegations of contradictory witness statements.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case against the petitioners was dismissed; the petition for quashment was rejected.

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO :2558 OF 2O19

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar, S/o. A.Madhusudhan aged about 32 years, Occ. Pvt_, Employee, R/o. H.No.7-71l24, Maheshwari-Nagar, Street^'No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, lr/edchal Malkajgiri District, TS-500 016

¶9

2 !llyyayuar lVladhusudhan, S/o. Late A. Narayana aged about 56 years, Occ. TSRTC Employee,

¶10

Smt Ayyawar Aruna @ Gayathri, Wo. A.Madhusudhan aged about 54 years, Occ. House-hold, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are R/o. H No3-10-395/2, Nyalkal Road, Opp. Radio Station, Nizamabad, TS-503 00'l

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telanqlrna, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana Through WPS City , Warangal District, T S

¶14

...RESPONDENT No.1/COMPLAINANT

¶15

2 Smt. V akulabharanam Shivashruthi, W/o. Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar, D/o. V.Ramchandar aged about 28 years, Occ. Houd6-hold Rio. H No.2-1 1-304, Shankaranagar, vidyarany-apuri, K U Cross Roads, Hanmakonda,TS-5060b9

¶16

RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances I stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.1 07 of 201g on the fite of the learned lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, TS and quash the same against the petitio ners/accused No.'1 to 3 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

PetitionunderSection4S2olCr-P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court maybe} pleased to stay all further^{proceedingsincludingappearance ofthe} petitioners/accused^{No.1 to 3 in c.c.No.107 of 20 19 on the file of the learnedI} Addl.JudicialFirstClassMagistrateatWarangal,TS,againstthepetitioners/ accusedNo.lto3,pendingdisposaloftheabovecriminalpetitionandpasssuch other order or^{ordersin the interestof justice-}

¶20

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the arguments of sri Bethi} Venkateswarlu.^{Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor} (TG) on behalf of the^{Respondent No.1 and of Sri Meher SrinivasaRao, Advocate} for the ResPondent^No.2.

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

¶23

-7

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D, NAGARJUN

¶25

CRId{INAL PETITION No.2558 OF 2019

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This petition is fited by A1 to A,3 seeking quashment of C.C.No.lO7 of 2079 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, cognizance of which was taken against all the accused for the offences under Section 49BA IPC and Sections 3 ald 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "the Act,,).

¶28

The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:

¶29

On 04.11.2018, the de-facto complainant has filed a written complaint stating that her marriage was solemnized with A1 on22.O4.2015 at TTD in Tirupathi. At the time of marriage, net cash of Rs.5 lakhs, gold ring weighing one tula, gold chain weighing of one tula and household articles like Almirah, Cooler, T.V, T\vo wheeler were given as dowry. They performed marriage reception by spending Rs. 15 lakhs. After marriage, they went to Nizamabad and thereafter they went to Tarnaka in a rented house and started, matrimonial relationship with her husband/Al.

¶30

After getting pregnancy, tl-re petitioners, rl,ho are her husband and in-lau,s, started harassing the de_facto complainant mentally and physically in filthy language to get tl-re pregnancy aborted and i, case if she gives birth to female child, they will kill her. The petitioners never used to send her to her parents house whenever they invite. Her husband/A1 used to discuss with his parents/A2 and A3 and sister every issue. A1 used to harass her mentally and physicalil' stating that since the de-facto c.mprainant studied M. pharmacy, she should do job and earn money. \The^de-tacto comolz' \ .^unant went to her parents, house for delivery and gave birth to male child on 16.03.2016. A1 used to visit her in Hanamkonda and later on the advise of her in-laws/A2 and A3, A1 stopped visiting her. The de_ facto complainant went to Nizamabdd to attend a function where she was diagnosed with Hernia on which petitioner Nos.2 and 3lA2 and. A3 abused her stating that the marriage of her son/A1 was performed with ill_health lady. Later, respondent No.2 continued her matrimonial relationship at Hyderabad with her husbarrd/Al. Her father-in-1aw was transferred to Hyderabad ald started

¶31

working at Uppal RTC workshop. The petitioners harassed her demanding Rs.15 lakhs as dowry. A panchayat was held with the elders in the house of her husband/Al, but the petitioners abused them in filthy language stating that unless and until the de-facto complainant brings additional dowry, they will not allow her to stay in the house.

¶32

On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.l2L of 2018 for the offences under Section 49BA IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was registered and statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, police have frled charge sheet concluding that the accused have committed offence under Section 49BA IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the charge sheet on the following grounds.

¶33

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations levelled against them are omnibus, there are no sqious a-llegations, which attract offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and petitioner No.1 has filed O.p.No.1614

¶34

¶35

of 2018 on 02.07 .2OlB seeking divorce against respondent No.2 and on receipt of notice, without any basis, a fa-lse complaint has been filed before the police and the police also without having proper investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners. The de-facto complainant has lived only few months with her husbar-rd/A 1 in a separate house at Hyderabad. She left on 26.08.2017 and subsequently did not turn up. Panchayat was held before the elders and even after the advice made by the elders, the de-facto complainant could not come back and join ,A.1. The statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are contrary to each other and there is no substantial evidence either oral or documentary to show that accused have committed the offence alleged against them Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the case against her.

¶36

¶37

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶38

7 . Now, the point for determination is rvhether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No .lO7 ol 2Ol9 can be quashed?

¶39

¶40

The contents of the complajnt filed by the de_facto complainant would go to show that when the de-facto complainant has conceived while they were residing at Tarnaka, Hyderabad, the petitioners i.e., husband and the in-laws of the de-facto complainant have insisted the de_ facto complainart for getting the pregnancy aborted. They also threatened that in case if the de-facto complainalt gives birth to a baby girl, then they wili spoil the life of the de-facto complainant. Whenever she was required to go to her parents' house, the petitioners used to decline and never used to send her to her parents, house. The petitioners used to misbehave and also abuse the de_facto complainant's parents, they used to demand her to bring Rs. 15 lakhs as additional do,ry.

¶41

When the de-facto complainant went to Nizamabad, where petitioner Nos.2 and 3 used to reside to attend a function, she has developed stomach ace and after examination, the doctor has diagnosed that she should be operated for Hernia on which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have started abusing her stating that her parents have got married their son with an ill-health person or person

¶42

(_.

¶43

having health issues. Her husband used to discuss everything with their parents and he used tr.r harass her on the advice of her parents. Originally, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 used to reside at Nizamabad on account of petitioner No.2's employment in RTC. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 was transferred to Hyderabad on which petitioner Nos.2 ald 3 started residing along with petitioner No.1 and the de-facto complainant in their house ald in those days also, the petitioners used to harass the de_facto complainant.

¶44

¶45

¶46

The statement of the de-facto complainant also goes on similar lines. The other witnesses alsc corroborated rvith the statements of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, there are certain allegations not only against petitioner No. 1, who is the husband of the de_facto complainant, but also against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. All of them have Iived under one roof at one point of time at Hyderabad.

¶47

1 1. The question raised by the petitioners that the statements of the witnesses are contradicting to each other and that there is no corroboration among the prosecution

¶48

¶49

¶50

witnesses is the question which rvill be considered by the trial Court ajter the witnesses were examined before the Court during the course of tria_l.

¶51

In order to consider the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashment, the petitioners are expected to make out that even if all the allegations in the charge sheet are accepted to be true, there is no case against the petitioners. However, as mentioned above, the investigation done bythe police, the contents of complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded would certainly conclude that there is a strong prima facie evidence to show that alr the petitioners have harassed the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs. When such a strong evidence is available in the charge sheet, the defence raised by the petitioners cannot be considered to conclude that the case of the prosecution is doubtful. The petitioners can certainly face the trial and put-forth their defence and disprove the charges levelled against them.

¶52

¶53

Therefore, considering the material on record, this

¶54

Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have no case to

¶55

consider under Section 482 Cr.p.C.,

¶56

[n the result, the criminal case is dismissed.

¶57

Miscellarteous petitions, if any, shall star-rd closed.

¶58

SD/.T.S NIVAS DEPUTY RE TRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

The I Additional Judicial Firsl.Class Arlagistrate, Warangal, T.S.

¶62

The Station House Officer, Women pJiC" Strti""lCity Warangat (U) 9 9n"^{CC to SriBerhiVenkatesil;r;,} ff;;;i"'ioiiuci

¶63

one CC to Sri p. Mehar Srinivasi Raol no"rolji"'rSpuct

¶64

5' Two ccs to the pubric prosecJt"r, High c"",;iioi tie state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶65

Two CD Cooies

9br -, J CJ

<br>

HIGH COUR T

DATED:15t0912022

-i ttt: '5 i.. r.t: ox
.: (
,.) 0 6 JAii ?i23
a
.{
'/
i:{ !-,.' Tav

¶71

ORDER

¶72

CRL.P.No.255tt oi 2019

¶73

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶74

G -/<-\J-

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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

Mulley Nikhil Vs State of Telangana and another

V. Subash Chandra Bose Vs M/s. Bijay Finance and Investments Pvt., Ltd. and another

Sri Ayyawar Madhusudhan Vs Smt. Vakulabharanam Shivashruthi

Gunda Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Syed shashnooorullah hussaini saberi ,ali sabers Vs Miss Sanobar Hussain

Smt. Sugur Rameshwaramma Vs The State of Telangana