Allowed

K.Sharada v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRLP/11096/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a dowry death case. Finding the allegations against the petitioner, who was in the USA, to be vague, uncorroborated, and based solely on telephone calls without confrontation, the Court held continuing the trial an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C. No. 2 of 2022 before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, were quashed.

K.Sharada Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 11 096 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.sharada, wo.K.Rajasekhar aged about 40 years, occ.Housewife, Fi,/o. california, USA.

¶8

...PETtTloNERyACCUSED(S)-3

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

2 P.Tirupathi Raju, S/o..late P.V.Ramana Murthy aged about 59 years, !)c_c.Advocate,^{R/o.H.No.1-'1001211,Church Road,} Kammaguda, Tu;kayamjal, R.R.District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 ot 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 relating to and in connection with pRC No. 212022 on the file of the XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Malkajgiri, and quash the same against the petitioner herein, and to pass

¶14

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to direct dispense with the presence o the petitioner on each and every date of hearing in pRC No.2l2o22 on the file of the XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of quash petition, and to pass

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 dispense with filing of certified copy of charge sheet in PRC No.212022 on the file of the XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of quash petition, and to pass

¶18

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶19

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 including appearance of the petitioner in PRC No.2l2O22 on the file of the XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of quash petition, and to pass

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Dr.Vissa Venkateswara Rao Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11O96 OF 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 on the hle of the Additional Metropolitan M agistrate, Cyberabad at Malkaj giri.

¶26

The petitioner who is arrayed as A3, filed the present petition questioning her implication in the above case filed for the offences under Sections 304-8 of IPC.

¶27

The case of the 2"a respondent is that, his deceased daughter was married to A1 after they informed them and parents of A1 that they were in love and they intend to marry. Marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2018. At the time of marriage, Rs.5O,0OO/cash and gold etc., were given towards dowry. The deceased joined A1 at his house in Srinivasnagar Colony, Nagaram. For some time, they led peaceful marital life. However, A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. According to the investigation, this petitioner, who is resident of USA was making phone calls to A1 and instigated ,{1 to harass the deceased. The 2.d respondent and others knowing about the harassment, tried to paciff A1 and

¶28

¶29

42, but there was no change in the attitude of A1 and 42. On 27.02.2021, the deceased sent wiratsapp message to her father stating that A.1 was money minded persoll and expecting arnount from her parents. Further he was passing comments against her. Vexed with such conduct of 41, deceased committed .suicide on 21.O2.2O21 by jumping from roof top of a building.

¶30

a Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 and for the offence under Section 304_8 of IpC. This petitioner was shown as absconding

¶31

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the onry a-llegation against this petitioner is that she had made phone calls to A1 and instigated him to harass the deceased. on the basis of such bald allegation of making phone calls, the prosecution cannot be continued. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in the case of i)state of Haryana v. Bajanlal reported irt 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335; ii) pepsi Foods Limited and another v. The Special Judicial Magistrate and others [(1998) 5 SCC Ta9]; liil S.W.palnikar V. State of Bihar reported in 2oo2(1) scc 241) and sought intervention of this court

¶32

in quashing the proceedings on the^{groundol there being no case} made against this petitioner.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing^{for the 2"d} respondent filed counter stating that this^{petitioner was the person} who had instigated^,A,1 and^A2 to^{harassthe deceased- Though,she} was staying in USA, this petitioner instigated^{A1 and A,2 by making} whatsapp video ca1ls to^get rid of the deceased.^{He relied on the} judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh

¶34

v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal^{No.173 1 of} 2010)^{and argued} that the Honble Supreme Court observed that dowry^harassmentis a crime dangerous to the societ5r,^{where women are subjected to} cruelty by greedy and selflsh husband and in-laws.^{He further} argued that there is nexus in between the death^{and harassment} meted out to the deceased.

¶35

As seen from the record, at no point of time did this^petitioner either confront the defacto complainant or the^deceased in^any manner. The only allegation is that she was making^{phonecalls to} A1 and A2 and in the process instigating them to^{harass the} deceased. In the complaint and statement under Section¹⁶¹

¶36

¶37

cr.P.c, an omnibus allegation is made against this petitioner that she was physically and mentally harassing the deceased, though she was in U.S.A.

¶38

The allegation that she was making phone calls to A1 ald ,A2 and instigating them to harass the deceased is an asstrmption of the police and also the 2'd respondent. It is not in dispute that at no point of time did this petitioner in any manner either assaulted or indulged in any oral abuse or demand any amount either from the deceased or the 2"d respondent. on ttre basis of vague allegation that she was complicit in the offence of abetting suicide by making phone calls to A.1 and A2, such vague allegations cannot be made basis to continue with the criminal prosecution.

¶39

The Hontrle Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar l(2O221 6 Supreme Court Cases 5991 held that in all such cases of harassment under Sections 4gg-A, 306 and 304-8 of IPC, t-here is growing tendency to implead the relatives of the husband on the basis of vague and ba-td allegations. In the present case, except stating that ttre petitioner was calling from the US, there are no other allegations, for which reason, this

¶40

¶41

Court hnds that continuation^{of the proceedingsagainstthrs} petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court.^No useful^purpose would be served to the prosecution by^{a,llowingthe petitionerto} continue with criminal trial.

¶42

In the result, the proceedings against^petitioner in^P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan^Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby^quashed'

¶43