Partly allowed

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLP/6346/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against two accused. It dismissed the petition against accused No. 2 (victim's mother) finding evidence of harassment but dispensed with physical appearance. It quashed proceedings against accused No. 3, finding no evidence of harassment against her.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against Accused No. 2 dismissed but personal appearance dispensed with; proceedings against Accused No. 3 quashed and she is discharged.

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6346 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

MEDAPATI RAJA MANI (alias) RAJA MANI Wo Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Private Service, 1-4-8316, Pragathi Nagar, R/o H.No.1-4-8316, Pragathi nagar, Bhongir Town, Yadadri, Bhongir, Telangana State

¶8

Medapati Rani (alias) Rani, Wo Aishwarya Kumar, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Staff Nurse, Ryo Jagathgirigutta, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITTONERyACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana and another, Rep. by its Court Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Through Station House Officer, Balanagar P.S., Cyberabad

¶12

Sri Sabbani Prakash, S/o Late Yogaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Labour, Rl/o H. No.22-36,Gtl Nagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 the proceedings in C.C. No. 1773 of 2019 pending on the file of the Xlth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District for the offences Under Section 498-,4,323 and 504 IPC against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 alone and pass

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimlnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in C.0 No. 1773 of 2019 on the file of the Xlth

¶17

¶18

Metropolitan tvlagistrate,^{Kukatpallyat Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga} Reddy District to enable^{the Petitioners/AccusedNos.2 and 3 to attend their} respective jobs pending^{the disposalof the Criminal Petitionand pass}

¶19

This Petition^{coming on for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing theargumentsof} Sri K.R.KOTESWARA^{RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor (TG) on behalf^{of the RespondentNo.'l and none appearedfor the} Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6346 of 2Ol9

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present criminal petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1773 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolital Magistrate, Kukatpally, Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, rvhich was filed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC.

¶26

The sum and substance ofthe case ofthe prosecution is that the victim viz Smt.Medapati Sabitha/LW2 marriage was performed with accused No.l on 30.06.2004 ald it was a love marriage. After marriage, they stayed in rental room in Rahamath Nagar and they were happy for eight years. Later accused No. I started harassing her physically and mentally and accused No.2, who is the mother ol accused No.1 also allegedly insisted accused No.1 to harass her physically and mentally. Further, accused No.1 allegedly spending most of the time with accused No.3, who is the wife of the brother of accused No.1 and she was working as a staff nurse in Hanuman Nagar, staying at Jagadgirigutta and since then accused No. 1 <sup>,as not taking care of his children and the

¶27

victim. On 19.01.20 18 at about 1O a.m., the victim called her husband for discussing in the presence of elders the family, and he came along rvith his mother/accused No.2 and both of them abused her in filth-t' language and beat her. Further accused No.2 allegedly dragged her saree and scolded her to die and the said incident was occurred on the road. Therefore, the victim felt insulted and tried to commit suicide by consuming thyroid tablets and immediatelv she shifted to hospital and rescued.

¶28

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner Nd. 1/accused No.2 was resident of foreign country and she came to India for short duration for medical treatment. There was no action on the part of accused No.2 to subject the victim for harassment- A1l the allegations are made in order to drag her in the criminal case so that she would not go out of the country. It is also his contention that there is absolutely no allegation made against accused No.3 but the only allegation against her is that husband of the victim was spending most of the time in her house, which did not constitute any offence of harassment or other offence alleged against accused No.3. Therefore, proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 are required to be allowed.

¶29

E -/

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the accused have abused and physically assaulted the victim on the road, due to such insult, victim attempted to commit suicide and she was rescued. Therefore, it is a clear case of attracting Section 498(A) of IPC. It is also his contention that there was criminal intimidation as well as assault on victim attracting the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, proceedings against accused No.2 cannot be quashed. He has a-iso contended that as accused No.1 spending time in the house of accused No.3, there were disputes arose between him and the victim. Therefore, proceedings against accused No.3 also cannot be quashed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record.

¶32

On a perusal of the record, the statement of the victim clea-rly shows that immediate cause that prompted her to commit suicide was on account of fi1thy abuse and physical assault made by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the road. The statement of the victim clearly shows that accused No.1 was harassing her continuously and accused No.2 instigating accused No.1 to harass physically

¶33

¶34

and mentally. ln view of the sa,rd allegations proceedir-rgs against accused No.2 cannot be quashed.

¶35

7 . A perusal of statemen L of LW2 lvictim, it indicates that absolutel.v there is nothing attributing accused No.3 with regard to harassment of the victim and her narne was referred only while attributing conduct of accused No.1. The conduct of accused No.1 only says that he has spending most of the time in the house of accused No.3, who happened to be his sister-in-law/6rother's u'ife. Spending time in the house of accused No.3 cannot constitute any offence of harassment so as to attract the offence under Section a98(A) of IPC. No other allegation is made against petitioner No.3. Therefore, the proceedings against accused No.3 are required to be quashed.

¶36

In the result, this Criminal Appeal 1S partly allowed as follows:

¶37

(i) proceedings against petitioner No.1/accused No.2 are dismissed. However, considering the age of accused No.2, her presence before the Court below for every hearing is dispensed with, however, as and when the Court below required her presence, she shall appear before the Court below.

¶38

¶39

¶40

(ii) proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is

¶41

quashed and she is discharged from the charges framed against

¶42

her.

¶43

Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

Sd/- A.V.S. AD ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'l . The Xlth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶50

The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad

¶51

One CC to SRI K R KOTESWARA RAO Advocate IOPUCI

¶52

Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Station of Telangana, Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

N,.-,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1910712023

ORDER

-.hr- STAIE ()
I
rll$ M
i: st
/
t/
.71't'ii \ ,//
';;);'"

¶59

CRLP.No.6346 ot 2019

¶60

Partly Allowing the Criminal Petition

¶61

00
<br>

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) Vs The State of Telangana and another

Peddagani Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Badugula Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dr.M.Ramana

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Smt.K.Jhansi Rani