Partly allowed

Ubbani Rakesh Kumar, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLP/6596/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. While not intervening to quash the FIR generally, the Court dispensed with personal appearance of most accused unless required for Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, but required personal attendance of the first accused.

What did the court decide?

Appears dispensed with for petitioners no.2 to 6; personal presence required for petitioner no.1 for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on judgment date.

Ubbani Rakesh Kumar, Vs State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132541

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 6596 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Ubbani lakesh Kumar, S/o Janardhan, Age 32 Years, Occ.FCl (Assistant grade-ll Technician at kazipet, Rl/o. H.No.1-1-1547, Venkatadrinagar, street no.ll.kazipet.

¶9

Ubbani Kousalya, Wo Janardhan, Age 57 Years, Occ.Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 1 -1 -1 547, Venkatadrinagar, street no. ll.kazipet.

¶10

Ambati Raqya, Wo. Uttam @ Uttam Kiran, Hindu, Age 30^years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1-'1-1547, Venkatadrinagar, street no.ll.kazipet.Now at H.NO.2-10-480, Teachers Colony, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda.

¶11

Uttam @ Uttam Kiran, S/o R.amaswamy, Hindu, Age 35 Years, Occ. pvt Employee, F/o.H.NO.2-1 0-480, Teachers Colony, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda.

¶12

Ambati Snehalatha, Wo Ramaswamy, Hindu, Age 53 Years, Occ. Housewife, ,R/o.H.NO.2-10-480,^{Teachers Colony, Waddepalli,} Hanamkonda.

¶13

]Ambati ulith @ Udith Kiran, S/o Ramaswamy, Hindu, Age 32 Years, Occ. Student, F/o.H.No.2-'10-480, Teachers Colony, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda. ...PETIT|ONERS/AI TO A6

¶14

AND

¶15

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings through lnspector of Police, Women PS, Warangal City, Warangal Urban District.

¶16

....RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶17

Ubbani Sindhura, W/o Rakesh Master, Ryo. H.No.3-1-132,^yadavanagar, Now at H.No.3-4-198, New Rayapura, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban Distiict. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶18

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 call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No. 2064 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal and quash the same in so far as Petitioners/A-1 to 4-6 are concerned

¶19

l.A. NO: 2OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 are concerned in CC.No. 2064 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition.

¶21

This Petition oring on for hearing, upon perusing^ih:: Memorandum of Grounds of Crimin;r F etition and upon hearing the argurn€,nls of lt//s SAtt/ANl SUNIL, Advocate^' )r the Petitioners and Sri S.Oanes r, Ar;sistant Public Prosecutor for ther I tate of Telangana on behalf of lhe Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for t e Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made tl-re f^,ll,rwing: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6596 oF 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C. ) by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2064 of 2O2O pending on the hle of learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, registered for the offences Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 I .

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State. Perused the record.

¶28

It is contended by the learned counsel for'the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and a false complaint has been foisted against them by respondent No.2lde-facto complainant. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the Court below.

¶30

.IAC"J I' .r 6596 ot20ll

¶31

¶32

Or a 1 , rusal tlI t lrc r:harqe sheer, this^,-lourt r-, o1 the vierv that truth r rthe rr',,isc ol the allegations ma,l,' irgrrinst the pctitioncrs ,rir L )e decidcd only aI-ter conducti'rg tt'i rl Hr:nce, this Court is nc, i^(:Lined 1o rntcrlere u,ith the pro< eecliril^, rg,ainst the petitioners.

¶33

Taking i:Ltc conside r-eLtion the fact rhat LiL. retilioner No.2/A.2- i,s not-rcr, PcLitioner No.3/A.3 i; sis-,: , retitioner No.4/A.4 (hr. r riLn,J ol A.3) rs brother-in larv, petition. r |los.5 and 6/A.5 &,^(; iLrc n:[zLlivcs of the peLitioncr,/irc:rrsed No.1 rc spectivelJ,, ir ncl on 11' gcncral alle gations irrc 1,1\ :le<l against them. thcir i: ppcaran r:c / al.te ndance belor lh: lc,,rrncd V Arldi tional rc icial First Cl:rss Magistrz te, W rrangal. in C.C.No.205.+ f 202O is d ispe nscd with, unle^js tlrcl presehce is required l:1' 'I l trial^(]ollrl fttr ar specific purp()sc c,r : L tlre time of recordlng t.:l( l < xrLmina[ion under Section 31:i Cr P.(]. atrd on the date of pro:-r - lrLcemelrt ol judgment. As sper:ific rrl :gations are lcveled aqair s pel.itior-rer/ accused No. 1 , no st ch reh, I is given so far as pe1 i . rr er/accuscd No.1 is concerned. Iirrrlher, the petitioners a r rt liberlv Lo rrrovc an applicariorr tc rre the trial Cr>urt s,:ek i r: I^{tcdisc'h:rrgc them from tlrcr:as,. r)n} such applicati,rn l) ir g filerl rnd tl pnrno facie ca:;e is rr:rt rnade out agair-rst the r. 1 re tri:rl Court shall consider Lhc s trrrc end pass appropria te'^r, It rs u,ithin a pcnod of tu-o (02) l,er:ks Ir-or the date

¶34

CAC.J Crl I'.No.6596 of 2023

¶35

¶36

of filing of the said dischargc pe tition without being influenced by

¶37

the observations made by this Court in this order.

¶38

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of.

¶39

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

Sd/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// Ap

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

The V Additional^{Judicial First Class Magistrate,at Warangal.} -. . . . i. f'f,"^f n"p"itor^{of Police, Police Station (Wig).qLty, Warangal District'} 3. One CC to M/s.^{Samani Sunil, Advocate} [OPUC] a. i*o CCs to the^{Assistant Public Proseculor, High Coudfor the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶45

Two CD CoPies

Kj )

HIGH COURT

DATED:201071202i1

; IAI a
ti',- t
7
jt
ill
c 1t [ut r$B ;:,/
-i
,/
ta, I - 1 :Ct.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

CRLP.No.6596 of :2r) 3

¶52

DISPOSING OF TH: CRL.P.

Ubbani Rakesh Kumar, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ubbani Rakesh Kumar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Batchu Amarnath Vs The State of Telangana

Regula Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Gattu Sreekanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Naresh Mandapuram Vs The State of Telangna

Thouti Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N. Mamatha Vs The State of Telangana