Allowed

Manusaran Reddy v. Smt. Battu Vasantha

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023CRLP/5940/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in USA accussed of dowry harassment. Court held allegations were vague and improbable as petitioners were abroad. Applying Supreme Court precedents, court allowed quashing due to lack of specific incidents implicating non-resident relatives.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/A5 and A6 in C.C.No.2018 of 2Ol9 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5940 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Manusaran Reddy, S/o Shivaram Reddy Aged about 37 years, Occ. Software Engineer, Ryo 575 E, Remington Dr, Apt 1.6H, Sunnyvale, California-94087, U.S.A,

¶9

Sreeja Reddy, Wo Manusaran Reddy, aged about 33 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o 575 E, Remington Dr, Apt 16H, Sunnyvale, California-94O87, U-S.A.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Battu Vasantha, Wo B.Mallareddy Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No. 50/2RT, Bahadurpura, KPHB, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. At Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 quash all further proceedings in C.C. No.2018 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C. NO.2018 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶18

l.A. NO: 3 OF 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 permit the petitioners to serve the notice to the^'lst respondent by

¶20

Substitute Service by^{publishing the same in the local newspaper i.e., RR and} Hyderabad

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof sri T.ANIRUDH} REDDY, Advocate for the^{Petitioners and of the AdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor} the State of Telangana on behalf^{of the Respondent No.2 and None appeared for} the Respondent No.'1

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

-------v

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.594O OF²⁰¹²²

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is^{hled to quash the proceedingsagainst} the petitioners/A5 and A6 in^{C.C.No.2O18of 2Ol9 on the file of XV} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶29

The l"t respondent^{is the mother-in-law of A1, who filed the} present compliant stating that her daughter^{Babitha was marredto} A1 on 07.08.2016 and at the^{time of marriage,on specific demand,} dowry of Rs.2.OO lakhs,^{Rs.7O,OOO/-diamonding,25tulas of gold} and other articles were^{given. CustomarlrAdapaduchu katnamand} other ornaments were also^{givenand performed the marriage in a} grand manner. After marriage, the complainant^{arranged for stay in} a three star hotel at Central^{Court, Hyderabad.From 12.08.2016,} A1 and his wife stayed in Central^{CourtHotel for three days and} reception was a-lso arranged.^{After the couple cameback from} hone),.rnoon trip, in-laws started^{harassing her daughterfor} additional dowry of Acs.2.OO of tand^{at Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet} and also house at Kukatpally Housing Board'^{On 17.8.2016, the} complainant's daughter called and informed that^{she was beingi11-}

¶30

¶31

¶32

treated by her husband and in-raws stating that she was black and the marriage was not performed according to their status and gifts vrere not given in accordance with their status. On the same day, 41 left to UK. One week thereafter, the complainant,s daughter came back to their house stating that inlaws had threatened that she should not return unless additional dowry demands were met. Ten days thereafter, the complainant's husband and others went to the house of A1's parents and convinced them that sufficient dowqr would be given and a-lso requested to take care of their daughter. 3 kgs silver was given and also informed that the lald would be registered in their name. 41 provided visa and the compraina,t,s daughter went to uK and there she found that A1 was having extra marital relation with other girls. A1 started abusing her physically and mentally on daily basis. Unable to bear the harassment of AI, the complainant's daughter attempted suicide by drinking toilet cleaner. She was taken to the hospital and treated. In the month of May,2017, A1 tried to kill her by pressing her neck. In the UK, a complaint was filed by her daughter. Both the complainant and her husband went to UK and stayed with their daughter. They were not given food and they had food at a charity. Having stayed in UK for 2

¶33

<br>

¶34

¶35

months, she came back and requested in-laws^{to take care of her} daughter. However, complainant's daughter^{was sent away from UK} by A,1, demanding to fulfilt the demand of additional^{dowrlr, failing} which, she should not return. Due to continuous^harassmentof complainant's daughter, police complaint^{was filed on l8.O7.20la.} The said complaint filed with Women^{Police Station, South Zone,} was investigated and charge sheet^was hled against^{A1 to 46.}

¶36

Sri T.PradSrumna Kumar Reddy,^{learned Senior Counsel} appearing for Sri T.Anirudh Reddy,^{learned counsel appearingfor} the petitioners would submit that^A1 and^{his wife stayed in a hotel} from 12.08.2016 to 16.08.2016 and A1^{returned on 17.08.2016.} Since, the petitioners, who are^permanent residents^{of America left} to US on3o.Oa.2OI6, the^question of^{harassingthe complainant's} daughter does not arise. In fact, the^{complainant's daughterfrled} petition for divorce which is OP No.146 of 2OI8 in the Family^Court at Hyderabad. The said divorce^{case was filed on O1,.O2.2Ola-In the} entire complaint, the statement of witnesses stating^{that these} petitioners had harassed her, there is no specihc incident that is

¶37

narrated. He relied on the^judgments; i) Kahkashan Kausar @

¶38

¶39

sonam and others v. state of Bihar l(2o22) 6 Supreme court cases 5991; ii) Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme court cases 6671; iii) Geeta Mehrotra and another v. state of Uttar Pradesh and another teol2) lO Supreme Court Cases 7411; iv) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haqrana [(199g) 3 Supreme Court cases 3o9l and v) Rajesh sharma v. State of Uttar pradesh t(201g) 10 Supreme court cases 4T2l and, argued that unress there are specihc allegations in respect of the relatives of the husband, the proceedings sha-ll not be continued. The courts have seen that innocent relatives are deliberately implicated in criminar cases on the basis of false allegations a,d such false implications should be looked into and the courts should come to the rescue of such persons, who are implicated without there being any specific reason.

¶40

on the other hand, Sri S.sudershan, rearned Additionar public Prosecutor submits that it is often the relatives of the husband, who in fact indulge in harassing the newrywed couple for additional dow5r. The allegations about additional dowry and whether these petitioners have harassed her or not are the subject matters of trial

¶41

¶42

¶43

to be decided by the trial court after examining^{the witnesses of the} prosecution. An opportunity should be given to the witnesses and be examined by the Court, failing^which it will^{only denyan} opportunity to prove the case and sought for^{dismissal of the} petition.

¶44

The petitioners being residents of US is^{not disputed.} Admittedly, within a span of ten^days from the^{date of marriage,A1} left to UK and thereafter, the petitioners left to USA.^{It is highly} improbable that within a span of ten days, these^{petitioners had} harassed the complainant's daughter for additional^{dowry. Even} according to the complaint made after^{marriage,they stayed nearly} for five days in Central Court Hotel at Hyderabad. After^completion of forma-lities and other rituals,^A1 left^{to UK.}

¶45

The allegation that the daughter of complainant^{was subjected} to harassment by these petitioners in the back^{ground of ttre facts} of the present case cannot be believed. In fact, A1^{left to UK and} thereafter sent Visa for the complainant's daughter.^{She left for UK} and all the major allegations of beating and harassment^allegedly happened in UK. She came back from UK and applied for^divorcein

¶46

¶47

the month of Februar5r,2Ol8, which is within a span of I yz year from the date of marriage.

¶48

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar l(2122l'^{6 Supreme Court} Cases 5991, the Honble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific ald 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. It also held that there is a tendency of falsely roping in the relatives of the husband and they are undergoing ignominy of a criminal prosecution. unless there are specific allegations, the prosecution cannot be permitted to continue.

¶49

B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of preeti Gupta v. state of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme court cases 667] held that the courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husbard,s relatives who were living in different cities ald rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

As discussed above, the role of these petitioners is stated in a vague manner and the allegation that within ten days of the marriage the first respondent's daughter being harassed appears to be unbelievable in the background of the events that are narrated and their staying in a hotel for hve days immediately after marriage.

¶54

In the said circumstances, for the reason of there being vagueness in the allegations levelled against the petitioners, no instances narrated implicating these petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶55

In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/ A5 and 4,6 in C.C.No.2018 ot 2Ol9 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolital Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶56

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a_llowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I /.-ll)

¶58

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To, 1 The XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 2 The S.H.O, Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶61

4 One CC to SRI T.ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CD Copies KKS

BS(

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810112023

ORDER

GRLP.No.5940 of 2022