Smt. Sugur Rameshwaramma Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO N^{NO: 8288} OF²⁰²²

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Sugur Rameshwaramma,^{W/o.Balakrishna, aged about54 years,} Occ. Hou-se wife, Rl/o. H. No.41-200/1,^{NRT Colony,Wanaparthy Townand} District.

¶9

Sugur Balakrishna, S/o.^{Gopal,aged about 54 y9ar.s, Occ. Tailor, Rl/o.H. No.} 41-2OOl1, NRT Colony,^{Wanaparthy Town and District.}

¶10

Smt. Sugur Rajitha, W/o.^{Srinivasulu,aged about 351ears,Occ.,House wife,} FJo. H. No. 4-128, Peddagudem^{village, Wanaparthy Town and District.}

¶11

Yogananda Sagar, S/o.^{Bala Krishna,agedab-out22 years,.Occ.Student,} R/o;. H. No. 41-20011 , NRT^{Colony, Wanaparthy Town andDistrict.}

¶12

Chiluka Srinivasulu, S/o.^{Krishnaiah,aged about 37 years,Occ. Private} Employee, Rl/o. H. No.^4-1 28,^{Peddagudem village, WanaparthyTown and} District.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^No.2 to⁶

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor the State} of Telangana at Hy-derabad^{representing Police, Wanaparthy.}

¶16

Smt. Gunti Ramya Krishna,^{W/o. Sugur RamanandaSalar,ag-edabout 28} vears, Occ. Govi.^{Teacher, Rl/o. H. No.3-35, Near Bus DepotRoad,} Wanaparthy Town and District.

¶17

.". RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶18

petition under section 482 of cr.p.c^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the memorandum of^{groundsof criminal petition,the high court may be} pleased to call for the records^pertaining to the^{impugned chargesheet in} C.C. no. 67212021 on the file^{of judicial first class magrstrate,wanaparthy,for the} offence under section 498^{(a), 509 r/w 34 1pc and sec3, 4 DP act, and same} may he^quashed by exercising^{jurisdictionunder section482 Cr 'P} 'C'

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 67212021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy, for the offence Under Section 4gB (A), 509 r/w 34 lpc and Sec.3,4 Dp Act including its trial and appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of main Criminal Petition.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M DAI/ODAR REDDY ,Advocate for the petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR.^{JUSTICED. NAGARJUN}

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.8288OFZ94_}

¶25

Q&DE8:

¶26

This crirrun:rl petilion is^{filed unclcr Scction 482 oi ttrc (loclt ol} (lriminal Pror:edure bv lhe pc tition ers- acr:u sed Nos^{2 to} 6^{to qL-iash} C.Cl.No.672 <tf^'2021 on the^{Illc ollcarncd} 'Jurlrc:i:tj^irirst(liass Mi]gislratc at Wanaparthy,^{the cognizance of \r'hich\Yas taken lor Lhe} 6|fcnce under Sections 498 and^{509 rcaci $' th q( ctlrrl)34 ,r1 tile} Inclian Penal Cocle and Sectior-rs 3^{and 4 of the D o'r!r1' Prohibition} Act.

¶27

'lhe lacts in brief as can be gathercd liom the recorrl available before the Court are as under

¶28

cle'facto On 28.08.2021 at⁵ 00^{PM the respondentNo 2} a) compla.inant lodged a^{complaintbefore Wanaparthy Police Station} alleging that her^{marriage was performedwith accusedNo' Ion} '27.04.2018 and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs 4 lakhs cash, 7^y2 tulas of^{gold as dowry to accused. The respondent No 2} d'e-factocomplainantwasblessedwitl-rafemalechildandthereafter accused have startcd^{harassing her ptlysically and mentallyto bring} additional dowry^{ol Rs. l3 takhs from her parents Thc accusedhas} stated that a^girl is^{ready to marry him Lry giving dowry of Rs 50} Iakhs. The respond ent^{No.2-d'e-factocomplainant inlormedthe}

¶29

./^ d.\

¶30

: I

¶31

alleged harassment to her parents, who hold a panchayath ancl tried to convince the accusecl and inspite of holding panchayath, the accuscd did not nrend their attitude.

¶32

b) Accused No.S, u,ho is the brother of accused No.l rook gold t)rnaments 1-rorn respond ent No.2-de-facfo complainant unrle r the guisc of a llnction but did not return the same. Accuscd No.3, lvho is the fathcr ol accusccl No.1 used to misbeh.rve wrth respondent l:,o.2 - de-fctcto <:omplainant in the absence of olher lamil'incrnbers irr the iouse and q,hen shc inlormed the same to her husband i,e., ar:cusecl No. i, he rhreatenecl that he would commit surcide if she drscloses the houschoicl matters to outsiders.

¶33

c) Ir r,.icu, of r he decision taker_r by the elders in a panch:ryath, shc .rlo,g *.itlt ar;<;usccl No.1 and tl,reir claughter stayecl in Add.kula. u,hercin she u.as not even provided with basic amentties apart from beating her with his belt to bring additional dowry from her parents. On eveq, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, accused No. I used to go to Wanaparthy by leaving respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant and her daughter alone in the house. On 19.06.2021 accused No. t has completely left the house and went to Wanaparthy.

¶34

d) On 72.07.2021 the respondent No.2 _ de-faclo complainant received a legal notice Accused No.I threatened the responclent

¶35

\1o.2 r-1r:-,ftr c to cornpli.Linant to nomlnate accusecl No.3 as he:r nornincc in tl'rc Ll(l I)olicr sr:rndilrg in her name. All lhc accusecl us.cl t(_, rliscrr,rss in frotrl of respondcnt Nr.t.)-de Jacto compl:tinant about rltr mone-,,, goir-rg to bc received after hcr death. On 06.O3.2022 ihe accuscd h:rvc abuscd her in lilthr, language and throll,n hei alrng u.ith ]re:-babri out of the house.

¶36

e) Basing on the said complaint given by respondent No. 2 - de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 142 ol 2O2). was registered for t]re offcnce under Sections 498-4 and 509 read with Section ll4 of t.he lndian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency has filed charge sheet, u,hich was numbered as C.C.No.6Z2 of 2O2l on the file o[ learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Wanaparthy. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 have filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.672 of 2021 on the file of Iearned Judicial F-irst Class Magistrate at Wanaparthy, on the following grounds:

¶37

i) Accused No.1 and respondent No.2-de-facto complainanr are living separately and at no point of ti-. the petitioners lived with Accused No. 1 and respondent No.2- de-facto complainant, as such the petitioners are no way connected or related with the matrimonial

¶38

.1

¶39

disputes bcrlr,ecn Accused No.1 and respondent No.2_ d.e_facto com plain an I

¶40

ii Accuserl No. t,^,,r1ro is intcrestcd to lead happv married lilc with re sponcicnt llct.?. de .lacto complainant has filed H.M.O.p.No, 1g oI 2t)21 on the file .f learned Senior civil Jucigc secking restitution of c.njugal rigl'r[s, fcrr *,hich resp.ndent No.2-d-e-facto compiainant has filec1 colrntcr. u-hrch suggests r,hat respondent No.2-de_focta cc,mplainant is not al all intcrestcd k; live wilh accused No.1.

¶41

3 l{earci learrrr:d cou.rscr on record for the pctitio.rers ar-rd the learned Assisranr Public prosci:utor.tnd perused thc record.

¶42

Now the point for determination is:

¶43

"Whether proceedings against the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.672 of 2O2I on the file of learned .Iudicial First Class Magistrate at Wanaparthy can be quashcd under Section 4g2 of the Cocle of Crim in a I [)r'occdrrrc'.r

¶44

During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that allegations leveled against the petitioners are incorrect and they are no way connected. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2- de-facto complainant used to reside separately and thus, the allegations ieveled against the petitioners herein are omnibus and there are no specific allegations against the .-

l

I

I {

pelitioners. On the other hand, learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutor} has submitte d that accused No.l and^{respondentNo.2-de-facto} compiainant are residing along^{with the petitionersunderone roof} as such it is not a fit case to^{quashproceedingsin a criminal case} unrler SecLion 482 of the Code of Criminal^Procedure.

¶49

As seen lrom the record, there are many^{factualissues} invoh,ecl in this case, which can be dealt^{by the trial Court only after} lull-fledged triai but not at this^{premature stage in acriminal} petitron filed under Section 482 of the Code^{of Criminal Procedure.} Learnecl counsel for the^petitioners has submitted^{that the petitioncr} Nos.1 and 2 have been sulfering from old^{age ailments and all the} petilioners were residing away from accused^{No. 1 and respondenl} No.2- d.e-facto complainant, as^{such, soughtfor at least dispensing} the presence of the^{petitionersbefore the trial Court. Therefore,} considering the above facts and circumstances^{and on considering} the submissions of both sides,^{this Court iiof the opinion that this} criminal petition can be disposed^{of by giving necessarydirections.}

¶50

7 Accordingly the criminal^{petitionis disposed with a directionto} the trial Court to dispose^{of C.C.No.672 of 2O2l on theIi1e of learned} Judicial First Class Magistrate at^{Wanaparthyas expeditiouslyas} possible. Further, the presence of the petitioners-accused^{Nos.2 to 6} before the trial Court in C.C.No.672^{of 2O2l is dispensed with except}

¶51

\

¶52

(t

¶53

as and when required by the trial Court for smooth progress of the proceedings.

¶54

As a scquei, thc misccllaneous pctitions, pcnding if anr., shall

¶55

sr and closcd

¶56

SD/. K.^AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE^COPY/i SECTI O}.T OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

1 . The^{JudicialMagistrate First Classat Wanapartt,y,} -

¶59

The station^{uoure oti""r,w"aiJJJnvFori"" stationTown, wanaparthy} District

¶60

. 5;; ;'c^{to sRllr4 DAMoDARREDDY' Advoca-te[oPUC]} 4. Two^{CCs to thePUBLICp"ncjiecufon'High Court for the State of} Telangana^{at HYderabad'[OUT]}

¶61

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶62

One^SPareCoPY

sl3

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510912022

1ELa1n
,4
7
I ,bAt t
lU o
rB1
F
s\ s f,
$,
o'
<br>* a
a q

ORDER

CRLP.No.8288 of 2022

),'

DTSPOSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

@.n9'"'
U h-
v\ \v

Smt. Sugur Rameshwaramma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sugur Rameshwaramma 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

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gunda Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Syed shashnooorullah hussaini saberi ,ali sabers Vs Miss Sanobar Hussain