Partly allowed

Kasturi Adinarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022CRLP/5760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to partially quash proceedings in a domestic offence case. While maintaining the investigation against the husband and mistress, the court quashed charges against the husband's mother and brothers for implicating them without specific allegations.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner nos. 3 to 8 in Crime No.345/2022 are quashed; investigation continues against petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

Kasturi Adinarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

r^"TIF $, fsr, I w * trn

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶5

	THEH	PRESENT ONOURABLE^{Dr'JUSTICECHILLAKUR SUMALATHA} RIMI PET NO OF
I	1 'iBEf 1) : l	iEen: Kasturi Adinara ana,^{S/o.K. Shambaiah,} Agedabout43 ars, Occ.:P.R.O.to omen &ChildWelfare^lvlinister, -.,r^{o.rr._ -}<br>R/o.SG-1, Sai Classic^APartment, Dollar Hills,PuPbalaguda, Manikonda,HYdFrabad.
I ,	2) '),	BoiniSandhya,Q/o.^Sammaiah, Agedabout36Years, / Occ.:PrivateEinPloYee,^/ ^{R/o.178, Nursing Quarters,} Bellampally,tvlancheria^District.
	3) *	Smt.^lt4.Kavitha,^{W/o.lv].Venkatesh,} Agedabout 48^years,Occ.^:Housetvife, ^{R/o.H.No.2-6-298, JaipuriColony,} Nagole, Hyderabbd.
	4.) '	I Smt.K.Someswari,Wo.^M'Jagan, Agedabout30 Y6ars, Occ.:Housewife, R/0, Plot No.7,Road^No'1, Rajalakshmi ColonY,^Nagole, Hyderabad^-500^068'
	s)	M.Venkatesh,^S/o'Ramulu, Agedabout⁵³Years,^{Occ.: Driver,} R7o,H.No.^{2-6-298,JaiPuriColonY,} Nagole, Hyderabad.

¶6

¶7

, I l I

¶8

	I	,q
	t	{i
6)	ll $,r iu1.lagan,S/o.^Yoganand, Agedabout40Years,^{Occ.: Private} R/o. Plot No.7,Road^No.1, Rajalakshmi ColonY,^Nagole, Hyderabad^-500 068. fr(ployee,	{.1(
7)	K.Parvathamma,^{W/o,LateShambaiah,} Agedabout70^{years,Occ. :Housewifer./} R!o.47,Nagaram^{Village,Keesara Mandal,} Medchal-Malkajgi^riDistrict. I lLl I
B)	K. Shiva^{Prasad q/o.LateShamba} Aged about4I ^years,Occ. Pri Rlo.47,Nagaram^{Village,Ke€saraM} m lii i+ 't1 i,l:ii i,4[, l^jl ,.,fIrr
	Medchal-Malkajgiri^District. ,i onerS/A-1 tJAts .',I I	i
	AND ,+;l'
1.	The StateofTelangana,^ReP.bY itsPublic Prosecutor, High Courtofludicature^{for theState} OfTelangana,at^HYderabad throughS.1.ofPolice,^RaidurgP.S. {i, '/ ri*FI i.il," I i I .,1'lc.tit'lt
)	li i ,l Smt.K,SantoshiMatha, Wo.^{Kasturi Adinarayana,} Agedabout36^yearg,Occ. : CentrallGovt;^E R/o. Flat No.202, DrtrthiResidency, RoadNo. 5-A, PanchavatiCOlony, I Manikonda, RajendraNalarMandal,rriari Ranga ReddyDistrict-0d089,^r..:n'e'S[d m i I l ri ili /,r rl I I

¶9

¶10

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court may be} pleased to Quash the F.l.R. in Crime^{No.345 of 2022 on the file of P S'} iRaidurgam, Cyberabad,^{registered against the petitioner,in the interest of justice}

¶11

t.A. NO:2 OF 2022

¶12

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court maybe} pteased to stay all further^{proceedings in crime No. 345 of 2022 daled 06-05-2022} on the file of P.s.^{Raidurgam, cyberabad including arrest of the petitioners}

¶13

LA. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶14

t Petition under Section^{482 of} Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstancesI} stated ln the lVemorandum^{of Grounds} of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court maybe} { not to harass the^{petition ers/Accused 1 to} pleased to direct the respondent^police tI n respect of Crime^{registered against them} B by calling^{them to the police stationi} in F.l.R. No. 345^{ot 2022, everYdaY}

¶15

*tfi-rI [,,iil

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PARAVASTU KRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and forthe Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.576O of 2022

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

With a prayer to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.345 of 2022 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad District, the present Criminal Petition is laid.

¶22

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing respondent No.l and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶23

The bunch of facts which culminated to registration of case against the petitioners is that the marriage of respondent No.2-defacto complainant was performed with petitloner No.1 about 13 years back and they were blessed rvith tr.r,o children. Petitioner No.1 developed illicit intimacy u,ith petitioner No.2. In that regard, a panchayat was also held. Disputes a-rose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 mainly on that ground and thereafter, the

¶24

¶25

Dr.CSL..I CrlPNo.ST60 of 2022

¶26

mother of respondent No.2 was beaten by petilioner No.1. Respondent No.2 was abused by petitioner No.2. petitioner No. 1 was instigated by other petitioners to harass respondent No.2. Basing on the above allegations, the case was registered against the petitioners aJleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 49g_A, 324, 323,504 and 506 read with 34 IpC.

¶27

Making his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent and indeed, petitioner No.1 is an employee in a news channel and petitioner No.2 is his co_employee and there was no relationship whatsoever between both of them. The ]earned counsel also stated that petitioner Nos.3 to g never resided along with petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, and only because they are relatives of petitioner No.l, they were roped in this case. The learned counsel also stated that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters, petitioner Nos.S ald 6 are the brothers-in-1aw, petitioner No.7 is the mother and petitioner No.B is the brother of petitioner No. 1. The learned counsel further submitted that it has bec

¶28

ir.[frr,:..E ai?

¶29

¶30

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.576O of 2O22

¶31

common and natural for the wives to implicate alt the family members of their husbands in criminal cases and the same is done in the present case also.

¶32

Opposing the said submission, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, a case was registered against the petitioners and in case, the investigation revea-ls that there is no involvement of the family members of petitioner No.1 in the alleged harassment of respondent No.2-defacto complainant, their names rvould be deleted.

¶33

The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that petitioner No.1 having developed illir:it intimacy with his co-employee i.e., petitioner No.2 started harassing his client and that, petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner No.2 demanded his client to agree for divorce and when she disagreed for the said proposal, both ofthem started harassing his client to meet that end.

¶34

A meticulous perLtsal of the complaint which formed basis for the police to register a case reveals that except mention of a stray statement that there was instigation pf

¶35

¶36

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.5760 of 2022

¶37

petitioner No.1 by petitioner Nos.3 to g in subjecting her to harassment, the defacto complainant has not mentioned any other material particurars. At least there is no mention that the mother of petitioner No.1, who is petitioner No.7, was residing along with petitioner No.l and she at any time involved in the family affairs of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2-defacto complainant.

¶38

While entertaining and dealing with the petitions that are filed under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., there is every requirement on part of this court to examine as to whether its intervention is required for. prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice.

¶39

In the case on hand, it is quite evident that without material a-llegations or pa:-liculars, petitioner Nos.3 to g were implicated only due to the fact that they are the family members of petitioner No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2/defacto complainant. Thus, abuse of process of law is apparent on the face of record. Therefore, .this Court is of the view that there exists justifiable grounds to exercise the power granted under Section 4g2

¶40

E-E:i'

¶41

¶42

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.5760 of2022

¶43

Cr.P.C. and quash the^{proceedings as} far^{as those persons} i.e., petitioner Nos.3 to 8 are concerned.^{However,so far as} petitioner Nos.l and 2 are concerned, in the light of the material and grave allegations levelled against them, it^is considered desirable to permit the investigation to^{go on.} The proceedings as far as those petitioners i.e.,^petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, cannot be^quashed.

¶44

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is^allowed in^part. The proceedings that are initiated against^{petitionerNos.3} to 8 who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 to 8 in^Crime No.345 of 2022 of Raidurgain Police Station,^Cyberabad District are hereby quashed.

¶45

1 1 . As a sequei, pending miscellaneous applications,

¶46

if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶47

¶48

Sd/.T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6D

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

¶51

To 1. The XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad' at Rajendranagar i i'il" Strtii. i'ort.^{onit"i,-Cuio"gi'Police-Station'cvberabad'} 5. orZEc iij siip"*i.iJ^{Kiishna, Advocate(oP-uc)} ;. i;; ddt^{toJn" puoric prosecuibr'Highcourt for the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad^(OUT) 5. Two CD^CoPies 6. One Spare^CoPY Kj

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712022

ORDER

CRLP.No.5760 ol 2022

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

¶57

1 rl a S l.1r(. o
(
+
coJ 1 4 Jrlr 2$22 ct
\%
..-,+ 'l
D Ss PAT C

¶58

Kasturi Adinarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasturi Adinarayana 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

Sowjanya Vs The State of T.S. and Another

Sri.Pola Saikumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another Vs The State Of Telangana and another

Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. P Parvathi Vs Smt. Pathloth Mangamma

Chelluboina Veeram Shetty Vs The State of Telangana