Allowed

Gutta Ujwal v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023CRLP/2417/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for offences 498-A and 306 IPC. Held insufficient material to establish prima facie case of harassment inducing suicide; quashing necessary to prevent abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings SC No. 596 of 2019 quashed; petitioner/acused acquitted.

Gutta Ujwal Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32{6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2417 OF 2O2O

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gutta Ujwal, S/o. Manohar^Raj

¶9

...PETITIONER'SOLE ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its PublicProsecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Smt. Ganji Rajani, D/o. G. Veerabadraiah, Aged^{44 years, Occ. Service,Rl/o} H. No B-e88, LlGH, NGos colony,^{Vanasth.liprf;S,"E1g?$P,3tMplArNANrs}

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C^{praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to call for records in SC^{No. 596 of 2019 on the file of the Honourable} Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga^{Reddy Districtat L.B. Nagar for the offences} Punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of^{lndian PenalCodeand quash the} same in the interest of^justice

¶14

I.A. NO:1 OF 2020

¶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^grant stay all further^{proceedings in SC No. 596 of 2019 on the file} of the Honourable Principal Senior Civil^{Judge, RangaReddy District at L.B.} Nagar for the offences Punishable under^{Sections 498-,4 and 306 of lndian Penal} Code including appearance in the^{interest of Justice, pendingdisposal of the} above Criminal^petition

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearingthe arguments of Sri P. Shashi} Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public^{Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No. 1 and of Sri S- Siva Sankar,^{Counselfor RespondentNo.2}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

TIIE IIIONOLIRABLE sRI JUSTICE) M.,LA,KMAN ( EMIIIAI. PETITTqN rLo_AaI, of ?o:2o

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

l. -?'l ri: C'r in^jr aj I)t..,i,,on It;rr l;r.Crr filr.cl rrr ttr ijr. rirrn 4g.? of Crirninal F)r,111q1 s1..- Clocic. 1!r73 iCr.p.C) sccl:ing (i,-lelsiltrteni. of the procccdrt'tgr; in I .(l.lio.S96, of j.)Oi9 on thrl lile ol thrr )r.incipal Scr_rior civil 'Judge' Rar qii Recld.r' nisrrict at L.B.rrragar-, rrri si-rg o.t of cr.ir,e Xlr-:.284 ol 20 S oi' C1131-r611png.,. police Sral o r. C..,,.beraba<j, t'cgisrcr-cd for tl.t ofli,rrr_,r: ptrrrishal;ic ur.ldc,i. Sccrrcn; ,l!)lJ A ancj 3 0r-.r of ihe f ndian pcrr rl (-)or,lc, lg6().

¶21

,) TItc sL- m it irl sL_llrstlirrcc. o1. Iitr._ ca.sc ,rI tI c ll⁽ rirlct tiorr is Lhat tlrc r.narr';,rgar l.r:t"'i-,:n lrti i:cceltsri:c] :rIlii Lrrr: ircrLr,sL.i 't'as; pr: r'[o nr.i c:d on 0.J. l0.2Or_rB. I o,ir ol lhc,nt lvrt rc softrvare e m pJo.,r,es u,oi-J<ing irr II]i,] comlran_.', (,n Ofi.rJS.:lO Iil. Lht: deccased al jr:gr-,.111, (lornrrrittccl srilcide and on kr,:rrr,.irr54 i,rbouI th: sl.ricid(]. t.he ,j€ ,/izi:1:r <:op11112 j11q11i anci other fuLrnily n':nrbers 'r' I]-rc deccar;e cr Irro,ree(lccr ro her- l.rouse atld [outnd 1]te lccc:rsetl 11.ic.cl b1, hangirrg, in h.r. trcil 1-oom, .Ac:cording to thr: l) .osccllLio j], tlrr_- rJcccascd rrig_h t 1.a,,,: d iccl rtrr ii( c4!.]l-11 oI mr:t-r1al irnC physical hat.assmcnL mzLc.le 11.,, thr acCuscd, iiari;rl>. oIl llrr. (.(,t ,1.];iit.n ur. rl.:t. ,.1. ,/itt:lo r,1;11p.3i;y 111y rrhr.r :s tlt,., s;lslcr of t he ,-lr.r-,.,. . r ' ' Pr''lic'' rcglsil rrr rlcl cr.irne a: rrj itJ c - 6r;111Frlc,[i611

¶22

ft 14!' \

¶23

o[ invcstigation,^{charge shect has becn filecl against the accusedlor} the olfences Punishablc^{ur-rcicr Seclions 498'h and 306 of IPC}

¶24

petitioner/^{accused isthal a rcaclirrgof tl're complaintas r'vell as thc} statements^{of thewitnesses exetmined bytheprosecutlon,} to show^{that thc} absolutelY^{no material} brought on^i:ecoi'd deccased^{u'as subjected to mental ar-rd physical harassment by the} accused^{ancl such harassnlenL cirovcher to commit suicidc-Thc} investigation^{onlyreveals that ali thcr'r'ittrcr'-'ses had suspicionthaL} the deceased^{attempted suicide on accounLof physical and mentar} harassment^{by the accuscd Thcre is no absolute assertion that} there was^{physicalancl mentalharassmentby the accused'It is} also his^{contention that suicide note was recovered by the police} from the^{spot and in the saidsuicicle note' the deceased attributed} thattheaccusedisofgoodchar:acterandnothingisspokenabout the harassment^{which is atlegedly made to the deceased by the} accused.^{Therefore, according to him, if the present proceedings are} continued^{it woulcl be abuseof processof larv'}

¶25

The learned^{counsel for respondentNo'2lde facto complainant} contendedthattheinvestigationwasperfunctoryandnotproperly conducted.^{The statementswere recorded at the hospital andthe}

¶26

statcnt(rnts al( ltot trul\ rellcct \ hat thc \itr)ess3t tavc sliitecl to the irrvcstigaring flicer. A<:cordrnil ro him, a (.onl)rdrnt uas iodgcd to rhe Dcpr-rt' Lr :nrmissioncr of rl0lice against irr.r o rer rrrvt:strgation. Il is also cro:t e tded rhat thc t1<: fackt conrpla;r a nt also lodgcd a rcport [o [hc,^,,r tman u,elfare l;ody. In thc sarC b: ckground, he surbrnitteci t_ra t. there is, mate r izrl, u,hic. ts no- relle ctt:d in the rnvestigation tl-at thr- accr.rsc_.cl sr-rbjcct::cl th : rieccased to hararssntcrrt ,lr rl such harassmcnt drove her Io ct;nrit sr_ricidc. It is also his ccn.,:rrtior-r thaLt sr:icrclc note has o b,l r:rst(r.1 clr-rring the tri:rl ancl 1l.ri_s I r itot a correct i.)rltm to decr<le thr, 3er^{Lu r n r1_r,} of the sr-rrr:icie ,'l. r hrrrt:rore, .ccorclirg to him, tr is petiriorr rs crevoid of nrr:rits artrl tlte rarre is liable to l.rc dismissed.

¶27

5 [-earnerd l,1riitional publrc pr_osccutor ]ontenrlec. Lhat prirna lctcie' thcrc' is n lteriar from t^c staternenti ,r * Ltir:sses rr.hicrr shou's that thcrr is phl,sical and ,rental harar;smerrt Therefore, he pra-vs to disrniss tl:e present peti(ion.

¶28

6 IJeeLrri all ti e paities

¶29

Thcre is trr rlispute that tl-re CeceaseC .onrr tt tec suicirle in hcr bedrr.rrlr-rlrl t rt house of the itcctrsed ft is also r01 in clrspute that both a.ct-rse I a.ci deceascci iycre softr,, ar (. !nil)lrr-v.es r,,.orkinq in IBM companl, r.r-rcl their. m;rrri:r;,,e uas.pc r.lbrrnerl ip tl_:c r.ear. 2OOg

¶30

..,*q ;4 \

¶31

and the^{incidentoccurred} on 06.05.20¹⁸ l.e after 10 Years Statutory^{presumptionis not availablc in respcctof this incidcnt'It} is not in^{disptrte that thc accused and thc deccased had three} grown up children'

¶32

The prosecution^{examincd tu'o sisters ar-rcl palents of deceased} as L.Ws.1^{to 4.The neighbour o[ deceased and the Managerof the} company,^{in whichthe deccased s'as u'orking'were examinedas} L.Ws.S^{and 6.ln the entirc evideircc of L Ws Ito 4' "t'ho are familv} members^{of the deceasedsl-tolvt'hat the deceasedmight have died} on account^{of physical and mental ttarassment' Theirstatements} only express^{suspicion on the ar:cused clarming that the deceased} might have^{died on accountof physical and mental herassment'} They did^{not assertively say that there isphysicaland mental} harassment^{priorto the incident 'lhey are not direct witnessesto} the incident^{which has happencd on tiie date of suicide'There is no} evidence^{on record to show that the deceasedwas subjected to any} harassment^{prior to the date of suicide' The father of the deceased} is the right^{person to say about the harassment'if any' made to her'} Absolutely,^{there is no mention of such altegationsagainst the} accused^{in the statement of father of victim'recordedunder Section} 161 of^Cr.P.C'

¶33

Thr-' r n1 l'( rhilrge s.1eet is laid on sLtspic:un ,rnc thcrc is no assc'rtil'r: stiilct t(. n1. lror anv of the uitn.ssros^.,\tth r.r_.qard to ha.rassnrc'rL. Ii e^-r, asslrrning that therc v as 1L.,ras;smr.nt boLh pht srcaj .utd l-r rlLtarl, it is needless to sav that €.::nr har.:rssmert Noti[i-l rrot iu]1,) ll t lo drii,e tl-re deceased to con-Lrnit st-trcrclc. The harassrlcn ilr-t.;t be grav,r cnouqh to drive tl-,e ir:r:e .rse.d to commit s-rricrcle.^'i'lr. r:ir t:Lils of tl-c harassment arc rrot sPOke-i ar-id r.nguc ciairrLs u. rl-( nla Lc tnat Lhcrc \,as physical ar d mr t: tal harassmcnt aiid that t'r''sL sl)ect thc accused

¶34

As r-ip.lrtlr ottencled b.1'the learned courseL.cr thc responclent No.2 I cle ]'i^'lct <_ rrrplainarrt, urhen the truthfulrrcss ol thc suicidc note 1s Lllt(lor⁽ i:,pute, ultimately this Cor-rrt ca.r r ot go into lhe disputc'ci^f:Lct. ]{e is also right in contending .hat rvhcn the investigari,r r rc lccts existence o| pnma fa:ie fae-:s, this Court cannot a1;p|cc:ia e arrd comc to the conclusion thal. ,l-rerc mnv not be conviction. l' t rir Li,ent on.

¶35

I 1. In sltl)[)()r l. ol his contentions, thc leiurerl counsel lor respondcnt Nc.2^/tle facto cornplainant relied upon t)-re decisions of Apex Court In f a::anya v. Bharathil and State (::hrorrgh CBII v

¶36

I (2021) 8 S(l(l )ll3

¶37

Hemer.der Reddy2, ',l,herein tire^Apr:;t Crrur t ltcid tirat^{r,i'hcil thert:ts} nraLeriai in ;-he irtve.si-igtrttr.rrl . thc^(loliii calliloi col,irc^ioih(l concluslion illat sttclr nrate riaj^rn.i,rv lr,lt bc^{t.,'-t fficie} rlt^{lhr ctrlrviciic:rtr--;I} accused.^ljuch a finding^tycruli amourrl io^{apPreciat.iorr of iacll;} wI-rici'r are not within the parzrmet-e rs of sct:tir>n 432 of Cr.l).11.^Thlr Court has to eonsicier the existencc o[ pntna J'acie^{case fronr1.1-re} marelial relied uporr by tl-re^{plosec,-Ltioie} itr^{the: ir-n'estigation}

¶38

i have gone through Lhc cniire rnatcriai^{otr t'ccord. par':icular-il} the statements of z l the u'iittesses.^{No r','iLness h::.s asset'tr,,dthat} thele lvas physical and mental harassrnt:trL^{from lhe accusedancl} due to the said harassmenL^{l-he victirn t:otnmittedsuicide. A1l th.:} witnesses only claimed that they suspect^{that the death of ti-re} deccased might be on accoult of^{p1-tysicalard mer-rtal harassment} by the accused. Suspicion has no^pleicc ln prosecutlon 01 indirridual. If prosecution is^based bn^{suspicion, itamounts to} abuse of process of law

¶39

1 3. With regard to contention of^{perfuncl.oryinvestigation} ,^{it is} needless to say that the^{law proi,ides remedies to the parties,if they} are aggrieved with the investigation.^{They haveappropriateremedy} to choose, which^{they have not done so far. Therefore,such a claim}

¶40

t 2oz: scc onl-inc sc 5 l5

¶41

is not ir^qrl.ul,l't,: den]'ir.g clairn of the accr-tsttcl sr:eking^qr:alsh, u'hen hc^js -'r'rr.it ::i t-o claim thc serme basing on l-: tn:tlerial^ot't recorcl

¶42

14⁽⁾ⁿ :r;>Dreci ,trolr of r.raterial on record, this^(lOurt- Iecls that there is no rr1/ria-r frrcie czrse to cortrnue the prc,ccerl n 3s against the accusc<l rrnc il'^, o rtinued, the same u,ould irmourll tr) abusc of procr':is bl'l r.r . T r,. rcfore. this Cor.rrt is inclinect to a lr r'r' :hc pre sent peLl[ron

¶43

In th,e r,:s L:, the^,lriminal Petition is allo'i,e<1 at'rd the proccc-rlinqs :^j I \o.596 oi 2019 on the file o'thc^rlinc.rpal Seni<.rr Cirril .Jrrclgc. i{a--g.r Iir:cldv Dtistnct irt L.B.Nagar. penrling against thc accuse c1 /pctrtiorrr r herein arc quashed. Consr, quentl.l', thc accusecl ./1;r:trtionr r trerein is a,::quitted for tlre :,aic[ offcnces. Miscellirncousj t),-- rt orrs pending, il any, shall stand close<l.

¶44

Sd/. A. V. S, PRASAD ASSISTANT IIEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0 SI:(:TICIN OFFICER To, 1 The Prrncipai llerrror Civrl Judge, Ranga Reddy District at ;. E, Nergar. 2 One CC to Sri⁾ Shashi Kiran Advocate IOPUC] J Two CCs to lh r F'ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State :f Telrrngana tourl 4. One CC to Sri li Siva Sankar, Advocate(OPUC) Two CD Cocie ,; MBC

F.I(iFI COURT

DA,TED i 2110712023

-a'::
r', r
/"/{
/
!r- ]B AIlfi 2$8 I
i, :.
'',,..'//
'i..'':
i)r

¶49

ORDER

¶50

C RLP. No.,Ztl1'l of 2020

¶51

ALLOWING THE CRIM!NI\I.. F'ETITION

¶52

@^{Gi'</sup> Q.o 6(o}

Gutta Ujwal v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gutta Ujwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Estharla Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Badam Praveen Vs Dr P Raghu

S.Bala Krishna Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Nanavath Thouria and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Ganta Sheshidar Rao and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Palakurthi Anusha Vs Palakurthi Raj Kumar