Allowed

Smt. Rekha Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023CRLP/10025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the petitioner, the mother-in-law of the complainant. The court held that proceedings could not continue based on vague, bald allegations of dowry harassment without specific acts narrated against her, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petition in C.C. No. 5133 of 2021 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally.

Smt. Rekha Sharma Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10025 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Rekha Sharma, Wo. Late Subash Sharma aged about 54 years, Occ. Housewife Rl/o. H. No. 1-11-3311, Flat No. 401 Chandra Mohan Building Near Pillar No. 294, Rajendra Nagar, Bandlaguda (Jagir), R.R. District

¶9

...PETITIONERYA2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Smt. Shubra Pathak, W/o. Gunjan Sharrna, aged about 26 years Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. H. No. 10-3-676(232), Vijayanagar Colony, Main Road Side Bank of Baroda Vijaya Bank, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

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 call for the records and quash the said proceedings in C.C. No. 5133 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad by holding that the said initiation of proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 ol 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 C.C.No.5133 ot 2021 on the file of

¶18

the Court of the Xlll Addl.Chief l,4etropo{itan lvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, including dispense with the personal attendance of the petitioner.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for the Petitroner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Mohd. Anwar Ali, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1OO25 OF 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.5133 of 2O2l on the Iile of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶26

The 2"d respondent is the wife of A1 who hled complaint stating that she was married to A1 on 29.O1.2O2O at Hyderabad. This petitioner and brother of A1 including A1 demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 25 tulas of gold jewelry AS dowry. Accordingly, dowry was given. After marriage, Al, A2 and brother of A1 started harassing for additional dowry and she was beaten and sent out of the house on 29.06.2020. The parents of the 2"d respondent requested time for arranging amount that was demanded, but in the month of August 2020, A1 went to house of 2.d respondent and beat her parents and warned thre 2"d respondent that if amount is not given, he will apply for divorce. Again on 12.12.2020, this petitioner and brother of Al werit-to the house of 2"d respondent and abused

¶27

¶28

-r--

¶29

her parents. On r:oming to kno,.i, that ,A.1 left India, complaint was hled with Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad. The said complaint was registered ior the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC ancl Sections 3 anci 4 of Dowrlr Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the said offences. However, the police deleted the name of brother of -.{3 namely Jayant Sharma as no evidence was found.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner would submit that A1 and the 2",rrespondent performed love marriage in the year 2Ol9 itself. However, she is falsely claiming that the marriage was taken place in the year 2020. Further, bald allegations of harassment are made against this petitioner that she demanded lor additional dowry. Except stating that on two occasions, this petitioner and her other son/A3 went to the parents house and abused them, there is nothing in the statement made by the witnesses to continue the prosecution against this petitioner for the said offence. In support of his contention, he relied pn the iudsment of Hon'ble

¶31

¶32

Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State ofBihar U2O22) 6 Supreme Court Cases 5991.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent would submit that the petitioner being the motherin-law was in fact responsible for harassing the 2"d respondent. There was continuous ill-treatment by this petitioner along with A1, for which reason, proceedings cannot be quashed against this petitioner.

¶34

As seen from the record, marriage had taken place in the year 2O2O according to the 2"d respondent. Thereafter, she lived in the house of A1 till June 2O2O arld stated that she was driven out of the house in June 2O2O. Till the date of complaint in December 2O2O, she was staying at her parents' house. In the said span of six months, the 2"d respondent has made allegations stating that she was harassed for additional dowry of Rs.S.OO lakhs. Except such bald statements, no acts are narrated against this petitioner consequent to making alleged demand. No reasons are given for the delay of nearly six months in lodging the corXplaint after she was allegedly

¶35

¶36

sent out of the house in the month of June 2O2O and the complaint was lodged after A I left to United States of America. For the reason ol there being no specific allegation against this petitioner, who is the mother-in-1aw, this Court deems it appropriate to qr-Lash the proceedings against her as no useful purpose would bt: served if the prosecution is continued on the basis such vague allegations.

¶37

In Kahkashan Kausar^(a, Sonam and others v. State of Bihar (supra| the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specihc and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

¶38

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (supraf held that the Courts have to scrutinDe the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especia-lly against husband's relatives who

¶39

¶40

were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

¶41

In the result, the proceedings against petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.5133 of 2021 on the Iile of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan lylagistrate, Nampa1ly, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a-llowed. As a sequel

¶43

thereto, miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand ciosed.

¶44

Sd/-P. GOURI SHANKER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY/i

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To'1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Women's Police Station, CCS,^{DD, Hyderabad} City.

¶48

One CC to Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to Sri Mohd. Anwar Ali, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2410112023

--1 i: sTri Il:
-:}
{,r 1 6 FtB 20?l

¶55

ORDER

¶56

CRL.P.No.10025 of 2022

¶57

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶58

f
@
\A-
Dr>
\b

Smt. Rekha Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rekha Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kesineni Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Araganti Santhoshi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Shaik Rahamat Basha Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Rupa Sundari and 3 others Vs Smt.Lalitha Agasthyaraju and 2 others

S.Trimurthy Vs K.v.K.Rama Rao and 6 Others

Smt. v.Vijayakumari Vs The State of Telangana