Partly allowed

Kongara Divya v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023CRLP/6526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.3 and her mother-in-law and set aside the trial court's order refusing discharge. The court found that allegations of beating were vague and made in the context of domestic suspicion regarding paternity, lacking specific details.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings against Petitioner/A2 and A3; Set aside of order refusing discharge against A3; Petitioner/A3 to face trial.

Kongara Divya Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA:: HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3251 OF 2020 AND 6525 oF 2023

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:3251 OF2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Smt. Kongari Rukmini @ Pavani, W / o. Late. K L Chitti Babu, Aged. 49 Yrs, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No. 27-136/9/6/A, Rambrahma Nagar, Nereclmet, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Kum. Kongara Divya, D/o. K L Chitti Babu, Aged. 28 Yrs, Occ. Gor.t., E_mployee, R/o. H.No. 27-736/9/6/ A, Rambrahma Nagar, Nerec{met, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONEwACCUSED No.2 & 3

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, through Its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Shiva Prasanna Laxmi, W/o. K. Sai Charary Aged,.27 Yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o 17-765/1, New Venkateshwara Nagat IL-NS Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hycierabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENVCOMPLATNANTS

¶15

Pctition under Section 482 ol 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 C.C. No 1234 of 20L9 pending on the file of thc XVII Additional Mctropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri as against the Petitioners/ Accused No.2 and 3 as one filed with an intent to abuse process of law.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances statecl in the Mcmoranclurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court mav be plcasecl to sta.'all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1.234 of 2019 pencling on thc file ol the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri as against thc Petitioners/ Accusecl No.2 and 3 inclu<ling the appearance of the Petitioncrs pencling clisposal of the criminal petition.

¶18

I.A. NO: I OF 2027

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in thc circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders pass by this Court on 20/08/2020 in IA.No. 1 of 2020 in CRLP.No. 3251 of 2020 untit further orders till disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶20

I.A. NO:1. OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in thc circumstanccs stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders pass by this Court on 19-09-2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2O20 in CRLP No. 3251 of 2020 until further orclers ti[[ clisposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6526 OF2023

¶23

Between:

¶24

Kongara Divya, D/o. late. K L Chitti Babu, Aged. 30 Yrs. Occ. Employee, R/o. H.No.27-136/9/6/ A, Rambrahma Nagar, Ncrcdmct, Fivdcrabacl.

¶25

...PETITIONETVACCUSED No.3

¶26

AND

¶27

The State of Telangana, through Its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶28

K. Shiva Prasanna Laxmi, W/o. K. Sai Charan, Aged. 32 Yrs,^()cc. I lousewife, R/o. H.No. 77-165/1, New Venkateshwara Nagar, |LNS Nagar, l\4alkajgiri.

¶29

...RESPONDENVDEFACTO COMPLATNANTS

¶30

Petition under Section tE2 of Cr.P.C praving that in tl-re circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the I ligh Court may be pleasecl to set aside orders passed on 30-06-2023 in Crl.M.P- No. 1179 <t[ 2022 in C.C. No. 7234 ol 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil .f udgc cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶31

I.A. NO: I OF 2023

¶32

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praving that in the circurnst.ulces stated in the Mcmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, thc High C()urt may bc pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No, 123{ of 2019 on thc filc of tl-re Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistratc, N{etlcha[Malka jgiri District.

¶33

This Petitions coming on for hcaring, upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Smt.Lilian} Rcbekah, Advocate for the Petitioner^{in Crl.P.No.3251of 2020) and Sri} Jakkula Sridhar, Advocate for the Petitioner in^{Crl.P.No.6526of 2023 and the Public} Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1^{for both the casesandnone} appearcd for the Respondent No.2 in both the cases.

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.325l OF 2O2O and 6526 of 2023 COMMON ORDER:

¶36

Criminal Petition No.3251 of 2O2O is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitionerslA2 and A3 in C.C.No.l234 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri.

¶37

Criminal Petition No.6526 of 2O23 is frled to set aside the orders passed in Cr1.M.P.No.ll79 of 2022 in C.C.No. 1234 of 2019 dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcha-l- Malkaj giri District.

¶38

The 2na respondent hled complaint alleging that she was married to A1. Her mother-in-law/A2, sister-in-1au,/A3 and brother-in-1aw/A4 were harassing her. A 1 leveled allegation that the child born to defacto complainant was not his child. Petitioner insisted for DNA testing. Later DNA testing was conducted and it was found that A1 is the biological father and 2nd respondent is biological mother. Since ali the accused were harassing for additional dow,ry and also on the ground that the son born to 2.d respondent was not the son of Al, complaint was lodged.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ A2 and A3 would submit that there are only bald allegations which are leveled against the petitioners. They relied on the judgment of Hon'Lrle Supreme Court in the

¶40

¶41

case of Kahkashan Kausar @ sonam and others v. state of Bihar IQo22l^{6 Supreme} court cases 599], wherein it is herd that unress there are specihc and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 4g2 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.

¶42

A3 frled an application before the trial court seeking discharge. However, the trial court refused to discharge on the gror,rnd that there is specifrc allegation that A3 had beaten the defacto complainant.

¶43

The said allegation of beating is vague and made without giving arry specific defails as to the reason why she was beaten and on what occasions. The situation is one of Al suspecting the 2na respondent that she was having an affair. In fact, A 1 frled divorce application on the ground that the 2nd respondent was preBTrant even as on the date of marriage and she gave birth to child and he was not the biologicar father. As already stated, the DNA test proved that A1 was the biological father of the child.

¶44

In the circumstances of Al suspecting that the child born to the 2"d respondent was not his child, the situation in the household would be one of suspicion as stated by the defacto complainant. In the said

¶45

¶46

situation, making a bald allegation that A3 had beaten her would not be sufficient to continue prosecution against A3. Specific allegations are made against 42.

¶47

In the said circumstances, the proceedings against A3 in c.c.No. 1234 of 2019 pending on the hle of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed. The petitioner/A2 shall face trial.

¶48

In view of quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A3 in criminal Petition No.3251 of 2o2o, the orders in criminal M.p.No. 1 179 of 2022 in c.c.No.1234 of 2ot9 on the flle of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, are hereby set aside.

¶49

Accordingly, the criminal^petition No.3251 of 2o2o is partly anowed and criminal Petition No.6526 of 2023 is allowed. consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if .!y, !t13ll r@4c_!os9d. I

¶50

To,

¶51

sdl- N. sRrHARr ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //[RUECoPY// ." SECTION OFFICER

¶52

I-he XVII Aclclitiorral Mt,trolrolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri.

¶53

2 The.Prirrcipal Junior Ci' J udge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, MedcharMalkajgiri Districr.

¶54

The Station House Ofticcr, Matkaigiri, Rachakonda.

¶55

-1. One CC to Sn-rt.. l.ilian Rebckah Aclvocate [OPUC]

¶56

C)rre CC to Sri..lakkula Sritlhar, Advocatc IOPUC]

¶57

Tr.r,. CCs to Public^pr.sccutor (TG) , High Court for thc State of l.elang.rna, I lr'tlt'rabad l( )U fl

¶58

Two CD Copies

cIlG { NJB^CT

HIGH COURT

DATED:09flU2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.3251 of 2020 AND 5526 of 2023

¶64

\ BE srAr 6'
)
-)
L) 1 I N0\j 2U23 o
*
1)i:::o t- | c i,fC

¶65

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION No.3251 of 2020

¶66

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION No.6526 of 2023

¶67

Kongara Divya v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kongara Divya v. State of Telangana

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

M.Rama Krishna Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Mazhar Ullah Vs The State of Telangana

Thopoji Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Moyya Raghavendernath Vs The State of Telangana

Chamakuri Dhanalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Badruddin Dhanani Vs the State of Telangana