Dismissed

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another v. the State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CRLP/457/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed two criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings under Dowry Prohibition and 49BA IPC. Findings of a prima facie case were recorded against the petitioners, and the matter was remitted to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions seeking quashment of the charge sheet under Sections 49BA IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were dismissed.

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^325e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 457 OF 2020 and 8755 OF 2018

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 457 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Takkars @ Prathap Sailaja, Wife of Pratab Nageswar Rao

¶10

Takkars @ Prathap Nageswar Rao, S/o. Muralidhar

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOs.2 & 3

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶14

Takkars Neelima, Wife of Narsing Rao

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 quash the Petition in C.C.No. 141 of 2018 on the file of V Munisif Magistrate at Warangal.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶18

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 of all further^proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No. 141 of 2018 on the file of V Munisif Magistrate at Warangal.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of

¶20

Sri V. RAMCHANDER GOUD. Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P. SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8755 OF 2018

¶22

Between:

¶23

Takkars Ramadevi Wo. Late Shanker Rao

¶24

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶25

AND

¶26

'1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶27

Takkars Neelima, Wo. Late Narsinga Rao

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

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 quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner (Accused No.1) in CC No.141 ol 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, in the interest of^justice.

¶30

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶31

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 in CC No.141 o'f 2O14 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, till pending disposal of the above criminal^petition.

¶32

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. RAMCHANDER GOUD, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P. SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.457 of2O2O & 8755 of2O18

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Crl.P.No.457 of 2O2O is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 and Cr1.P.No.B755 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner/Al seeking quashment of C.C.No.141 of 201B against them, cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections 49BA IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "the Act").

¶38

The facts in brief as can be seen lrom the charge sheet are as under:

¶39

The marriage of the de-facto complainant was taken place on 09.05.2004 at Hanamkonda with one Nageshrvar Rao. At the time of wedding, as per the dernand made by the family of her husband, including the petitioners herein, who are the sister, brother-in-law and mother ol her husband, al amount of Rs.5 lakhs net, 1O tulas of gold and household articles along with Rs.SO,OOO/- towards Aadapaduchu Katnam ^rere given After one year of matrimonial lifc, her husband and the

¶40

¶41

petitiollers herein have started harassing the de-facto complainar,t mentally and physically on which she made an atternpt to c rmmit suicide. A complaint u'as filecL bll the father of the de-lz cto complainant in Subedari Polir:e Station on 04.06.2005, but later the same was compromisr:d. The de-facto complainant has given birth to a daughter. Th,: ralassment of the petition:rs and her husband continuerl for want of additional <1,,wry o1 Rs.4 lakhs. On 07.05.2O07, t.ee de-facto compLainant ; husband by nalne Nageshwar .lao, died on account of ill health.

¶42

Even r fter the death of her husbanc, tbe de-facto complainant continued to stay in her inlaws hc,use. The petitic,rrers l erein, who are the sister, brothe'r-in-law and mothe r ol I er husband, continued to haras s the de-facto complainan, for bringing additional dowry. Unbearable u'ith the hztrassrrr( nt, a panchayat of elders was conrlucted. During the pzrncha..,i t, the accused have admitted tha - -hey '.r'ill look after the dt: I ecto complainant properly. Even :rfler panchavat was h,:ld, arit in the harassment of the petitioners contintred for want c'f addit onal dowrv of Rs.4 lakhs.

¶43

¶44

On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.169 of 2OL7 was registered for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the statement of the de-facto complainant and other witnesses, including the elders, who acted and advised all the accused, including the petitioners, were also recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed. Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal has taken cognizance of the same for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶45

Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are bald in nature, no speci{ic averments against the petitioners. The petitioners / A2 and A3 are living separately from the matrirnonial home of the de-facto complainant. Petitioner No.1 is working as VRO, whereas petitioner No.2 is doing business in Jagtial, Karimnagar District. They never interfered with tfre de-facto complainart's family affairs. The

¶46

¶47

de-facto cor nplainant's husband was addicte a to bad vices, consumed I quor and was admitted in Yashoda hospital for treatment f rr which the petitioners/A2 ald 1.3 have spent Rs. l{i lakhs and after the death of the de-factr: complainant's husband, th:y requested the de-facto complainirnt to return the money whic r they have spent for medical tre;lt.ment, but she refused to ray the money and threatened that she would implicate tlr. petitioners/A2 and A3 in Section^zi98A IPC case.

¶48

It is s;r bmitted further that the de-facto^{(:():arplainant} has started de:r anding the petitioner/A 1 , her mother-in-law, to handover tl-r ' entire propcrty belonging to them t.<- her for which A1 has refu scd saying that petitioner/A2 is al;o entitled for share in tlrt said property. Petitioner/A2 har; filed a suit in O.S.No.653 ,f 2017 seeking partition of the properties and the same is pe'r ling. The petitioner/Al is nothinSl t.o do \ "ith the said harassr rent and that she has been fal sely inplit:ated in the case irnd thc allegations levelled against her are'b{d allegations and therefor,' prayed the Court to quash the che.r5le sheet

¶49

Sri S. 3anesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted l-rat all the allegations levelle,l against the

¶50

¶51

petitioners will have to be settled only after full fledged tiral before the trial Court and therefore sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶52

Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that there is clear evidence in the form of statements that the petitioners continued to harass the de-facto complainant even after the death of her husband and therefore sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶53

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶54

1 1. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.141 of 2018 can be qua shed?

¶55

According to the de-facto complainant and the charge sheet, the harassment of the accused and also her iate husband commenced within one year from the date of^her marriage u,hich was 09.05.2004 and on account of harassment meted out by her husband and his family members, she has gone to the extent of attempting to comrnit suicide

¶56

¶57

The all, :gations against the petitioners can l.'e clivided into two parts- T re harassment by her husband ancl the petitioners untii the ril ath of her husband in 2OO7 an<1 the a-lleged harassmenl ry the petitioners subsequent to tr( d,:ath of her husband. In both the situations, the petiLioners are there.

¶58

It has l,een specifically mentioned that a,n arount of Rs.5 lakhs cash, 0 tulas of gold has given as dowry to the farnily of her husband at the time of marriage and also give n F.s.SO,OOO/tou,ards Aac apaduchu Katnam to the petitiorLe:/A2 and the harassmenl- continued by the family memberr; to bring Rs.4 lakhs as adc itional dowry. Panchayat was also r;tated to have been held. Even though the elders have ad',ised the family members of her husband, u,ho have undertak,)n before the elders to tzil e care of the de-facto complainar.t. properly, still they continr ed their harassment. The signitcance of the allegations .evelled against the petitioners pri,:r to the harassment. are only in respect of allcgcd demand and acceptance < f dowry of Rs.5 lakhs cash, 10 tr- li: s of gold and Rs.50,000/ - towards Aadapaduchu katnarn. Other allegations lrt though are there against the petitioners respect of

¶59

¶60

harassment for want of additional dowr5r, they are against her late husband and also the petitioners. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, including the de-facto complainant, it is clear that tlrc de-facto complainalt was continued to be subjected for harassment by her late husband and the petitioners.

¶61

In respect of the harassment, which was allegedly continued after 07.O5.2O07, is concerned, even after the death of her husband, the de-facto complainant continued to stay in her in-laws house along with her daughter. It is mentioned in the complaint and also in the statement by the de-facto complainalt that the petitioners have continued the harassment to bring Rs.4 lakhs as additional dowry. A panchayat was conducted for which LWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 have acted as elders in the said panchayat before the elders the petitioners have admitted that they will take care of the de-facto complainant properly thereafter, but they continued to harass the de-facto cornplainant even after that. Therefore, on consideration of the complaint, statement of witnesses, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners.,

¶62

¶63

The c,r: nplainant has reiterated in her sl ar-errrent under Section 161^,)r.P.C., and also supported b1' the wLtnt:sses. The elders, who uere examined as LWs.4 to 7, havc also stated that they acted a; elders in a panchayat. It rvas zLlleged that the petitioners h ave been harassing the de-facto c,o:lplainant for want of addil ional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs on v.,hich ihe t:lders a-fter enquiry havt admonished the petitioners, wherein all of them have stated t hat they will take care of the de-fa<:to complainant properly, bu subsequently, they have thrown h er out of the house. So these statements certainly go to s how that the petitioners h ave continued harassment for ri,ant of adclitiona,l dowry and t ltimately necked the de-facto cornpiainant out of the house.

¶64

It is su bmitted by the learned counsel lor the petitioners that the petit ioner/A2 is working as VRO and pr't-rtiorrer/ A3 has been doing t usiness at Jagtial and they nevt:r slayed from the date of marr iage of the de-facto complainant along with them under one r rof, therefore, there is no por;sibilit ', o1' harassing the de-facto complainarlt. Though there is no ,lenial, the contention o ' the said petitioners may be corroc I tl-rat both of

¶65

¶66

them may not be residing with the de-facto complainant under one roof on account of their employment and business. However, it cannot be ruled out that being not physically present under one roof, there is a possibiiiQr of meeting out the harassment against the de-facto complainant.

¶67

Here is a peculiar situation where husband of the de-facto complainant is no more. The de-facto complainalt is continued to stay in her in-laws house along with her daughter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are disputes between the de-facto complainant on one side and the petitioners on the other side. It is a-lleged by the petitioners that the de-facto complainant has been demanding the entire property, hou'ever, Ai has refused to give the propert5r stating that petitioner/A2 is also having share on which petitioner / A2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.653 of 2017 for partition of the properties. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners cannot say that the de-facto complainant and the petitioners are in good terms. There are dispute s in respect of the properties.

¶68

Other dispute betu,een the de-facto complainant and the petitioners is that it is alleged by the petitiog.ers that when the

¶69

¶70

husband of t 1e de-facto complainant was hospitalized prior to his death, pttitioners/A2 and 43 stated to ha.re spent Rs.15 lakhs and wl ,en the said amount was demande d ttre de-facto complainanl- has refused to give and threat ened them to implicate the n in a case under Section 49BA IPO. Therefore, even accordu g to the petitioners there is a demanrl for return of monel'.

¶71

Under f iection 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cann,rt go into the details of exe mining the statements in detail, grvr: a linding as to who is s rcaking correct and who is speaking incorrect, whether the r lisputes are in respect of property to be shared, or money to br, returned by the de-facto complainzmt or the petitioners h ave been demanding the acldit io^-ra 1 <lowry and other conne< ted things. It is the staten)ent c,f ttLe de-facto complainant :hat ultimately she has been neckecl out of her inlaws LLouse.

¶72

21 . In any ,:ase, considering the discussion mad,: above, there is a strong prima facie material again st t krr: petitioners, therefore, at Lhis stage, this Court cannot give ;in'v- finding that the case of the de-facto complainant is fals< an<i that the

¶73

¶74

¶75

petitioners have not harassed or not demanded aly money from

¶76

the de-facto complainant. Therefore, all these issues have to be taken care and put to triai by the trial Court after framing appropriate issued. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition.

¶77

In the result, both the criminal^petitions are dismissed.

¶78

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶79

//TRUE^COPY//

¶80

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUW^REGISTRAR qE

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

't. The lst Additional Judicial^{First Class Magistrate' Warangal'}

¶85

The Station^{House Officer,Women Police Station' Warangal City' Warangal'}

¶86

One^{CC to SRI V. RAMCHANDER GOUD' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶87

4.TwoCC,stothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthestateofTelanganaat HYderabad [OUT]

¶88

One^{CC to SRIP' SRIDHAR RAO' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶89

Two^{CD CoPies}

d"{

HIGH COURI

DATED: 071(tt)12022

..4
'i )'
-/
,i'i. iv
i!
i.1
a=ft,
<br>,
.+.-: i
') uf,r,

¶95

COMMON OFIDER

¶96

CRLP.No.457 ot 2020 & 8755 of 2018

¶97

DISMISISINC; IHE BOTH CRIMINAL I]E.- IICN,Si

¶98

WITHOIJT C(IST'S

¶99

q'\ x

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another v. the State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Takkars , Prathap Sailaja And Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

KolaganiSubhashChander Vs The State of Telengana and another

B.Narsimhulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Azeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Munige Narsimulu Vs M. Venkateshwar Rao, (Major)

Bashetty Chinnanna Vs a. Narsaiah and Another

Gadari Luther Vs State of Telangana