Allowed

Smt.Manjula v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC21 Dec 2022CRLP/748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Bench allowed the Criminal Petition filed by Accused No.2, holding that since no ingredients of cheating, rape, or assault were made out against her, the proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed; the Charge Sheet and proceedings against the petitioner-Accused No.2 in S.C. No. 222 of 2021 were quashed; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Smt.Manjula Vs The State of Telangana and another — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32sl ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 748 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.Manjula, W/o Pasunuri Suresh Kumar, Aged 43 years, Caste.Kammari BC-B, Rl/o H.No.5-91/2, Balajinagar, Phase-ll, Nagaram Village, Keesara Village and lr/andal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITION ERYACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Smt.Bejjala Rajini, D/o Late. Ramchander. Aged 34 years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No.5- 137/2, Bhavani Nagar, Nagaram Village, Keesara Manda.l, Medchal -Malkajgiri District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 Proceedings Charge Sheet in SC.No.222 ot 2021 on the file of Honble Special Court for the Trial of Cases Under SC and ST (POA) Act Cases - cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, against the Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶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 stay of all further proceedings in SC.No.222 of 2021 on the file of Honble Special Court for the Trial of Cases Under SC and ST^(POA) Act Cases-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.2, pending disposal of the criminal petition

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Shankar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

Crl.P?l il ion N,r.748 of 2022

¶20

¶21

THE H( NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,StlRE:hlDER

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Crin inal Petition is filed under Section 482 ol'the Code of Criminal ProceJure, 1973 (for short^'Cr.P.C.) by lhe^petitioner- Accused No.2 seeking to^quash the^proceedings ,:qainst her in S.C.No.222 of . 021 on the file of the Special Court for--l-rial of Cases under SC/ST ()OA) Act Cases cum VII Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at -.8. Nagar, registered for the offenr:er; punishable under Sections 4I7,420,493,376(i),506 of Indian F'enal Code (for short "lPC') ar d Sections 3(2Xv) and 3(2)(Va) of S(;/I;T(POA) Act, 2015.

¶24

The case of the prosecution in brief is that Ac<:used No.l got acquainted witl rthe 2nd respondent- de facto complainant who was a tenant in the house of Accused and the Accused Nc.1 prrtmised to support her wl en she was in the process of taking divorce. With their acquaintr rnce, they also started having physical relation. Accused No.1 L sed to spend time in the house of coniplain,ant which was to the knrwledge of this petitioner - Accused N:.,2 who is the wife ofAccuse( No.1, however she never^questioned rirr. One year

¶25

Crl.Petition No.748 of 2022

¶26

¶27

thereafter, the complainant was asked to vacate the^premises and she vacated and Accused No.1 used to come to her home in a drunken condition and^picked up quarrel with her. The 2nd respondent - complainant has obtained divorce. Later, Accused No.l stopped seeing her, and then she wentto his house and asked as to the reason why he was not seeing her. When the complainant made a phone call to Accused No.1, this petitioner - Accused No.2 abused and asked her as to why she was calling her husbandAccused No.1. The disputes were then taken before the elders and in the presence of some of the witnesses, Accused No.1 allegedly abused the 2d respondent - complainant in the name of caste, for whlch reason the present complaint was filed.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - Accused No.2, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State - respondent. Perused the record.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner - Accused No.2 would submit that except the allegation of petitioner - Accused No.2 speaking on phone with the complainant, there is absolutely no other allegation of any of the offences alleged.

¶30

Crl.P€tit on Nc.748 of 2022

¶31

¶32

On the o:her hand,^{learned counsel for the 2"0 respondent} - de facto compl rinant submits^{that grave injustice wcuiCbe caused} to the compla nant if the^proceedings against this^petitioner

¶33

Accused No.2 ; re^quashed. He further submitted that the relation between the Arcused No.1 and complainant is to th€ knorvledge of this petitioner - Accused No.2, for which reason, tfre proceedings against her can rot be quashed.

¶34

Even accrrding to the respondent No.2, excepl the allegation of this petitiontr - Accused No.2 abusing her o,rer plrotre ras to why she was seeing her husband - Accused No.1, there ar: absolutely no allegations aga nst this petitioner.

¶35

Since no 1e of the ingredients of any of the penal provisions of cheating or ra )e or assault or criminal intimidation are made out against this prtitioner, the proceedings against the petitioner - Accused No.2 r re liable to be quashed.

¶36

Accordin;ly, the Criminal Petition is allo,,rred and the proceedings a( ainst the petitioner - Accused No.2 rr 5;.C.No.222 of 2021 on the fi e of the Special Court f,or Trial of Cases under SC/ST

¶37

Crl.Petition No.748 of 2022

¶38

¶39

(POA) Act Cases cum VII Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.

¶40

Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Sd/.B.SATY THI DEPUTY REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Special Court for the Trial of Cases under SC and ST (POA) Act Cases - cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

¶48

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri M.Shankar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

plp

HIGH COL RT

DATED:21 11212022

ORDER

CRLP.No.748 of 2022

4-,,?i E Or
I l1$.''l tn
4" ;/
*.y'
.<<) .../
4r) -,\1./ ' j /..,t

¶57

ALLOWII\G THE CRIMINAL PETITION @^*d4 )ot3

Smt.Manjula v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Manjula 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

Vinod Kumar Viswanath Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s Medipro Edumangement Private Ltd. and Another Vs State of Telangana and Another

M/s Viswaroopi Energy Private Limited and another Vs State of Telangana and another

Meda Babu Rao Vs The State of Telanagana

Chandra Shekar Erra , Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Parlagolla Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana