Allowed

Nabeela ( Syeda Nabila Firdous ) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023CRLP/6112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner in a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that vague, bald allegations against a relative do not justify continuing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ordering the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings against petitioner/A4 in C.C. No. 453 of 2019; Criminal petition allowed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Nabeela ( Syeda Nabila Firdous ) Vs The State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE} STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 6112 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nabeela ( Syeda Nabila Firdous ), S/o Syed lbrahim lqbal, aged 24^years, Occ. Household, RYo H. No.¹ 6-2-7 41 lDl46lA, TV Tower,^Malakpet, Asmangadh, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^its Public^{Prosecutor High CourtOnbehalf} of Women Police Station Vikarabad^Dist.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Reshma Begum, Wo Syed Zeeshan^{Hussain, aged about 20 years, Occ.} Beautician, Ryo Dharur Village and^{Mandal, Vikarabad}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be} pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 453 ot 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2O2O

¶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 the further proceedings in C.C. No. 453 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{M/S ASADULLA} SHAREEF, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent No.l and of Sri JILLELLA RAJESWARA RAO,^{Advocate for the} Respondent No. 2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6112 oF 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner/A4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.453 of 2Ol9 on the hle of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad.

¶24

The 2"a respondent/defacto complainant filed a complaint alleging that she u,as married to the A1 on l2.Ol.2OlB. At the time of marriage, Rs.60,000/- cash, tu,o tulas gold, bike and other household articles <sup>/ere given. They lived happily for a period of four months. Thereafter, A1 and others used to comment that the 2",1 respondent $,as illiterate and abused her in filthl lalguage causing mental harassment. All the accused have harassed her physically anrl mentally and thrown her out of the house. Eight months have passed and A.1 did not call her while she was residing at her parents house.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that bald allegations are leveled against this petitioner stating that she u,as one of the acctrsed who harassed the defacto complainant

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of^the respondents that the allegation against this^petitioner and others^is that the defacto complainant was necked out of the house.

¶28

As seen from the allegation in the complaint and the statement made by the defacto complainant and others, it^is alleged that A 1 was harassing her and no specifrc allegation is^made against this petitioner. The allegation of sending tlre defacto complainant out of the house is against A 1 to A3.

¶29

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonarn and others v. State of Bihar l(2O22) 6 Supreme Court Cases 5991, the Honble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct aliegations 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.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

husband's .elatives who were living in differe.t cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

¶33

In the present case only on the basis of balcl allegation that this petitioner u,as also responsible for the harassmt:nt meted out by the husband/A i, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in vielr, of the observations of the Hontrle Supreme Court.

¶34

In the result, the proceedings against petilioner/A4 in C.C.No.453 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class iVlagistrate, Vikarabad, are hereby quashed.

¶35