Partly allowed

Thadkamalla Harshavardhan v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC2 Dec 2022CRLP/3414/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Justice K. Surender, in a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC, examined the scope of quashing criminal proceedings against in-laws accused of domestic cruelty. Relying on the Supreme Court's Kahkashan order that relatives should not be roped in on vague grounds, the Court quashed proceedings against the parents and dismissed the petition against the primary accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 3414 of 2021 dismissed; Criminal Petition No. 3426 of 2021 allowed to extend interim order; proceedings against in-laws quashed.

Thadkamalla Harshavardhan Vs The State of Telangana and… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3414 and³⁴²⁶ 0F²⁰²¹

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{3414 OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thadkamalla Harshavarcihan, Sio.^{T.Rarnulu,aged 35 years, OccPvt} Emplovee , r/o Flat No. 20'l ,^{Sri Nivas Apartment. lndiranagar, IVlarsoorabad} ...PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNo.I LaVNdga, Hyderabad

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana .^{through the Station Houseofficer, WomensPoltce} Station, SaroornagZr, represented^{by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Teiangana, Hyderabad.

¶11

Smt Boorugu Sahithi, D/o.^{DhanjayaWo. T Harsha Vardhan,29 y9?rs, Occ} Housewife,^"r/o Flat No. 305, Sai-Nlvas^{Residency, Plot Nos. 36 to 38, Road} No.1, Sringeri Colony, Mohan^{Nagar',Kothapet,R.R.District.}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petation under section⁴⁸² of cr.P.c^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stateci in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to call^for- the records^{relating to and connectedwith c.c. No. 1400of} 2021 , on the fiie of V Additional^{lvletropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabadat LB Nagar} and^quash the same in so^{far as petitioner/A.lis concerned}

¶14

l.A. NO: I OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section⁴⁸² cf^{Cr.P .C prayirrgthat in the circumstances} stateo in the Memorandum^of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourtmay} be pleased to order stay of all^{further proceedingsin C.C. No. 1400 of 2021} ,^on the file of V Addl. Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagarincluding} appearance of the^{petitioners/A1is concerned, pending disposalof the above} Crl.P

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof sri LAXMAIAH} KANCHANI ,Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutoron} behatf of the Respondent^{No 1 and of sri RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate for} the ,Respondent^{No. 2.}

¶17

;zu/llNAL^{PETITION NO:}

¶18

2021

¶19

Between:

¶20

Thadkamalla {iaroja . Wo. T.Ramulu, aged^{60 years' o:l} ,^{l-lousewite.,rlo'}

¶21

Flat No. 201 , Sri^'Nivas Apartment, lndtranagar,^{Manso:rratrad,LBVNagar,} Hyderabad

¶22

Thadkamalla Ramulu, S/o Late Pentaiah,^{70 years.O:c , Retd. Employee,} r/o. Flat No. 2(^,'1 . Sri Nivas Apartment, lndiranagar,^{Man;oorabad,LBVNagar,} Hyderabad

¶23

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2^{& 3}

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of T;lang;ana. through the Station^{House offict:t} ,^{Wcmens Police} Station, Saroo naglr, represerited by^{its Public Prosecutlr. High Court of} Telangana, Hy Cerabad.

¶26

Smt. Boorugu lahithi, D/o. Dhanjay^{Wo. T.Harsha Vardf an, 29- years,Occ,.} Housewife,^-rlo Flat No. 305, Sai-Nlvas^{Residency, Plot llos. 36 to 38, Road} No 1 Sringeri )olony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet,^R.R.Dist'ict

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition unde Section 482 of Ct.P .C^{prayingthat i I the circumstances} stated in the Memor andum of Grounds of Criminal^Petition, ':he^{lligh Court may} be pleased to call fo the records relating^{to and connectedvr tr C.C. No. 140O o'f} 2021 . on the file of^/ AdCl Metropolitan Magistrate, C.vberal>:1^{al LB Nagar and} quash the same in s ) far as petitioners/A2 and 43 are conce'r:d^.

¶29

l.A. NO: 1 F 2021

¶30

Petition unde Se.tion 482 af Cr P.C^praying ihatⁱ r^{:he circumstances} stated in the Memor andum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition^{lhe Fligh Court may} be pleased to dispe ise with the filing of certified copy of^{< harge sheet in C.C.} No. 1400 of 2021,⁽ⁿ the file of V Addl Metropolitan Magi^;trate. Cyberabad^at LB Nagar for the^pre sent .

¶31

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶32

Petitron unde Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that i r ihe circumstances stated ir the l\4emor andum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further^proceedings in C.C. Itlr: 1400 of 2021, on the file of V Addl vletrrpolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at l-B Nlagar including appearance of the^p ititioners/A2 and 43 are concerned,^pen: ng disposal of the above Cr-1. P

¶33

l.A. Ntf,: 2OF 2022

¶34

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Extend the rnterim order dated.29-04-2022^passed in Crl.P No 3426 cf 2021 until further orders, pending disposal of criminal^petition.

¶35

This Petition coming on for hearing. upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^of Sri LAXMAIAH KANCHANI .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondenl No.1 and of Sri RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶36

The Court made tlre following: ORDER

¶37

THE HOI\ OURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SUIIIINDER CR.IMINAL PITTITION Nos.3414 and 3426^()11' 2O2L ORDER:

¶38

CRIMINAL PET:TION NO 3414 ot 2O2L:,

¶39

Filed by Accused No.1 in C.C.No.1400 of 2021 :r the file of V Addl. Metropolita r Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar.

¶40

CRIMINAL PET TION NO 3426 of 2O2Ll.

¶41

Filed by Ac:used No.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1400 of 2021 on the file of V Addl. Metropoli an Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar

¶42

Heard the submission of learned counsel for th: petitioners as well as the learn, ld counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Also heard the srbmission of the learned Assistant Putrlrc F)rosecutor, who is representi rg respondent No.l-State.

¶43

Learned ccunsel for the petitioners submits that lhe Case of the 2nd respondent d: facto complainant is that she was rarrie<i to A1 on 15.02.2017 as pe- Hindu rites and customs and at the tme of marriage dowry was also⁽ iven. A1 was working in HSBC Bank at Chennai and de facto complairrant was working in ICICI Bank, Hyderabacl. She was staying in the in-l lws house during her employment witlr ICICI Bank, at

¶44

that time the allegation is that the petitioners A2 and 43 uded to pass comments that she was not good looking. Husband/Al was abusing her and also assaulted her. There after she questioned the petitioner/A1 for consuming liquor, the petitioner/A1 picked up quarrel and beat her. 4. As seen from the allegations made by the de facto complainant all the allegations against A2 and 43 are vague and no events are narrated. Specific allegations are against A1. Except stating that the petitioners in Crlp.No.3426 of 2021 who are the parents of A1 have passed comments, there are no specific incidents or events that are narrated to suggest any kind of cruelty that was meted out to of the 2d respondent/de fact complainant. The present complaint appears to have been flled after A1 filed the case for divorce. For the reason of there being allegation which are vaguely, stating that the petitioners who are parents in law supported A1 there is nothing specifically mentioned to keep the proceedings against these petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Couft in Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Versus State of Bihar in (2022)6 Supreme Court Cases 599 held that the the Court should be cautious in proceeding against the relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and they should not be roped in on the basis of specified incidents and omnibus allegations. For the reasons discussed above the proceqdings against the in-laws who are

¶45

Petitioners/A2 anl 43 are here by quashed. However, .lre prs6sg6i.r,

¶46

shall go on again:;t A1.

¶47

Accordingly, the Criminal petition No.3414 of 2021 is dismissed and Criminat^petit on No.3426 of 202L is allowed.

¶48

As a sequr:|, pending Miscellaneous Application:;, if any, shall

stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY/1

Scl/- K. SAILESHI DE:I,UTY REGISTTAR ./) SEC TION OFFICER

¶53

1 The V Additional Metropolitan [\llagistrate, Cyber:rbad at LB Nagar.

¶54

2 The Station Ho tse Officer , Womens police Station, Saroor.nagar.

¶55

3 Two CCs to As sistant pr rbl16.pp65s6gtor, - - --'-' '^LrYr High I Court vuur t for tre State of Telangana at t lyderabad (OUT)

¶56

4 One CC to SF t. LAXMATAH KANCHANT Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to SRt RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyl Advocate [OpUCj

¶57

1. Two CD Copie;

CDL

HIGH COURI'

KS, J

D.A]-ED: Ail1Zl2D22

ORDEFI

CRL.P.No.34l4 and 3426 of 20

¶66

<br>'r.i
f,;
at<br>itt
uc
'

¶67

DISI{I SS ING T'T] E CRI IVIINAI- PETII'ION

¶68

COo'P'4

¶69

a1 \aa

Thadkamalla Harshavardhan v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thadkamalla Harshavardhan v. The 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

Laxman Babu Cheruku and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mr Manne Rajwardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Teenmar Mallanna and another Vs State of Telangana and another

Ayyalapu Vijayendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thadkamalla Saroja and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Ande Shankar Vs State of Telangana