Allowed

Smt Bhusathi Laxmi and 6 Others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC28 Feb 2023CRLP/6447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, holding that vague allegations of instigation by petitioners living separately lacked credibility and intense scrutiny warranted dismissal of charges under dowry and IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.332 of 2017 against petitioners/A2 to A8 quashed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Smt Bhusathi Laxmi and 6 Others Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6447 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt Bhusathi Laxmi and 6 Others, Wo Late Kumar, R/o. H.No.2-74, Vattinagulapally (V), GandipetCdal, Aged about. 65 Years, Occupation. Housewife, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

¶9

Smt Ashamgari Kallavathi @ Laxmi, Wo. Sri.Laxmaiah Aged about. 47 Years, Occupation. Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-86, Velmula (V), Ivluthangi, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, T.S.

¶10

Smt lvlangalaram Lalitha @ Rajamani, Wo Sri Krishna, Aged about. 37 Years, Occupation. Housewife, Rio. H.No.1-66/8, Pati (V), Patanchervu lvlandal, Medak District T.S.

¶11

Smt Guthi Padma, Wo Sri Venkatesh, Aged about. 35 Years, Occupation. Housewife, R/o. H.No.4-66, Kondakal (V), Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.S;

¶12

Busathl Anjeneyulu, S/o Late Kumar, Aged about.4l Years, Occupation. Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No.2-74l1, Vaftinagulapally (V), Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

¶13

Ashamgari Laxmaiah, S/o Agamaiah, Aged about. 54 Years, Occupation. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-86, Velmula (V), tt/uthangi, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, T.S.

¶14

Mangalaram Krishna, S/o Sri Narayana, Aged about. 48 Years, Occupation. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-66/8, Pati (V), Patanchervu Mandal, Medak District, T.S.

¶15

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 to 8

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶18

Smt Bhusathi Shirisha @ Ashwini, Wo. Sri Bikshapathi, Aged about. 27 years, Occupation. HouseWife R/o. H.No.1-116, Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO. COMPLAINANT

¶20

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 in C.C.No.332 ol 2017, on the files of Hon'ble Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 8.

¶21

l.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶22

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 in C.C.No.332 of 2017, on the files of Hon'ble Xlll Additional Metropolitan lviagistrate, Rajendranagar including appearance of the Petitioners / Accused Nos. 2 to 8 pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition,

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B SHANKER .,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶24

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6447 OF 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A2 to A8, to quash the proceedings ln C.C.No.332 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-4,, 4I7, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

¶30

2" Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶31

The 2"d respondent/ defacto complainant filed complaint stating that she married Accused No. 1, 3 Yz years prior to the complaint and at the time of marriage 66q,ry of Rs.9,50,0OO/was given along with other gold and silver articles. Thereafter, she gave birth to a daughter. After birtl.r ol the daughter, she was being harassed physicalll, and mentally for additionai dowry and she also faced troubles on petty issues. She was also beaten.

¶32

These petitioners who are in-laws of the 2nd respondent started harassing her for additional dowry. Unable to bear such harassment, she along with her child went back to her father's house and lodged the complaint.

¶33

¶34

As seen from the complaint, vague allegation is made that all these petitioners used to make up stories against the 2.4 respondent and Accused No.1 was beating her. Apart from the said vague statement that all these petitioners were instigating A1, there are no instances or events that are narrated by the complainant to infer any kind of cruelty that was meted out by these petitioners. Admittedly, a-ll these petitioners are living separately at different places. The allegation that all of them have instigated A1 and in turn A1 beat 2"d respondent, appears to be highly improbable arrd unbeiievable.

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhandr held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, 1n especially against husband's relatives who were living different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

¶36

'(2o1ol^{7 Supreme CourtCases667}

¶37

¶38

¶39

The observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar's case are squarely appiicable to the facts of the present case wherein vague allegations of instigating Al, are leveled against the petitioner.

¶40

B. In the said circumstalces, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the criminal petition

¶41

9 . Accordingly, tl-re Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to AB, in C.C.No.332 of 20 17 on the lile of XIII Additionai Metropolitan Magistrate, RajendreLnagar, are hereby quashed.

¶42

Miscellaleous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

SD/.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48