Disposed

Smt. Maram Sugunamma v. State of telangana

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLP/6745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 6 in matrimonial dispute. Court found general allegations warranted trial disposal rather than quash; appearance of accused dispensed with subject to specific procedural requirements.

What did the court decide?

Appearance/attendance of accused before trial magistrate dispensed with unless required for specific purposes or Section 317 Cr.P.C. application granted for discharge.

Smt. Maram Sugunamma Vs State of telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I i li

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

RIMINAL PETITIO NO: 6745 OF 20

¶7

Between:

¶8

pgt. Maram S.ugunamma, Wo. pedda Narsimha, aged 72 years, Occ. House wife, caste. Munnuru Kapu, r/o. H.No.s_rz, r6ttriinoii Sinri, Fdrlb:Jr"I Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

Maram Pedda Narsimha, 9/o Jangaiah, aged g7 years, Occ. Farmer, Caste. Munnuru..KgO.u, Fl/o H.No.5-12,-Kothai;dta Sdvuku' potepatf6, lrrnlli Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

Maram Venkatesh, S/o. {, Narsimha, aged 44 years, Occ. Driver, Caste. Munnuru {qpt Ryq.^ptor No.43, Satyadei Enday'e, #sthin;pui;;b;;iA: Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

9Tt. ryaggnuJg Chandrakata,. Wo. .Venkataiah, aged 46 years, Occ. House Wife, C_aste. Munnu Kapu, R/o. H. No.9-1 0-1 4/214,'Roshandofu : Cilil;;t. varsnattnagar, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga reddy District.

¶12

Gunukula. Yadagiri, S/o_. G-pullaFh, aged 43 years, Occ. Driver, Caste. Munnuru_Kapu, R:/o. H.No- 1 4/1 5C, Roshandowla, Almasguda, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy diskict.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/A2 to A6

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its^public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶16

Maram Saritha, Wo. M.Srinivas, Aged 31 years Occ. pvt teacher Caste Munnuru kapu (oH.No. S-1.Oh4t44 Roshbndowla, Champapei, Siroohagar mandal Ranga Reddy district

¶17

,..RESPONOENTS

¶18

Petition under section 482 ot 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 retating to cc No. 579g of 2022 on the file of lllrd Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar and to quash the same against the petitioners/accused No. 2 to 6.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶20

Petition unde liection 482 of Cr.P .C praying tlat in the rircumstances stated in the Menror ,rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, 'h:r Hrgh Court may be pleased to grant r;tay of all further proceedings in OC Nc. l;793/2022 on the file of lllrd Addl. It4et 'lt)olitan^{Magistrate at LB Nagarinr;ludin1l i:,pp()arance of the} pet itio ners/a ccused rtr6.

¶21

This Petition ;o ning on for hearing, upon perul;ing tlrr: l/e,morandum of Grounds of Crim re I Petition and upon hearirrg ttrt: arguments of Sri Damodar Reddy Gopireddy, Advocate for the Petilioner arrd llri S.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecl or on behalf of the Respondent No.1 anc none appeared for the Respondent No.:

¶22

The Court made the^rotlowing: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{G. AIYUPAMACHAI(RAIi,ARTIIrY}

¶24

CRIMIIIAL PETITION No.6745 oF 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed^{underSection482 of the Code} of Criminal Procedure, L973^{(for short Cr.P.C.) bythe} petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6^{to quashthe proceedings against} them in C.C.No.5798 of^{2022 pendingon the file of III Additi'onal} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{L.B.Nagar, registeredfor the offences} under Sections 498-A,^{506,494 of Indian Penal Code (for short} 'IPC') read with^{Sections3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act'}

¶27

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitioners and Sri S'Ganesh,} learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorfor respondent No'1 - State'} Perused the record.

¶28

t earned counsel for the^{petitioners contended that ttre} petitioners/accused Nos.2^to 6^{are falsety implicated in the case'} Petitioner Nos.1 and^{2 are father and mother of accusedNo'l,} who is the husband^{of respondentNo.2 and that petitioner No'3 is} the brother and^{petitionerNo.4 is the sister of accused No'l and} petitioner No.S is the^{husbandof petitioner No'4 herein' He} further contended that^{only general allegationsare made against} the petitioners/accused^{Nos.2 to 6.Therefore,prayed to quash} the proceedings against^them.

I t

I I I : I I i !

On t re other hand, learned Assista tt public prosccutor contenderl I ti:t after due investigation, the police L:Li,e f.led charge sheet.gain rt the petitioners herein. Therefc re, it is nor a fit case to quash Lh ;rroceedings against the petitioners at r.ris ,r.r.,lr...

¶33

{)n a 1te rusal of the charge sheet, this Cour t is of the view that tlre [rr th or otherwise of the allegatio-rs mtrc: against the petitiorlers , tn be decided only after conduc,ing tr irr[. [lencc, this Court rs rro inclined to interfere with the pr()ccedir,,.ls against the petitioners.

¶34

'J'akin 1 into consideration the fact th:Lt cnly general allegations rre leveled against the petitioner{; / accr ts(lclVos.2 to 6 their apo, ar.ance/ attendance before t-re Il Additional Mctropolit:Lr lvlagistrate, L.B.Nagar, in C.C.No.5i?()ll of 20.22 is drspensed r ite, unless their presence IS r:qrrirt rl bl the trial Court lbr a specific purpose or at thc time of r::or,ling their examtnation trnder Section 313 Cr.p.C. and ,t I thr: date of pronouncelr,:rt of judgment. Further, thr: 1rct:tioners are at liberty to I e an application seeking disclrarge :rnd on such application I ,:ing frled, the trial Court sha[[ di;po5s ()t th,] same on merits withc.rt being influenced by the obsen,atrons na,le bv this Court irr tlre ::resent order.

¶35

7 Accc,r< ingl),, the Criminal petition is dis rose,C ril

¶36

t I

¶37

¶38

Miscelaneous applications pending, if any, shal stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

sd/- N. cHA //rRuEcopy// ^r.i[?iiiE[tf".-rm8^/

-Lto

To,

SECTiON OFFICER

The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate At L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad.

¶45

The station House officer, s"r*.rgr.w;a ;;;

¶46

Rachakonda

¶47

"*,rn,

¶48

"*,rn,

¶49

1. One CC to Sri. Damodar 4. Twoccs to Asst. pubric^{Y opireddy Advocate[oPUcJ} Prosecutor' High court of relangana (oUT).

¶50

5- Two cD copies.

v,P

kam

?oW

: i i ! d I I

i i I :

HIGH COURT

DATED:24107¹²⁰²³

ORDER

CRLP-No"67a5 of 2023

-,,: ':: =-:<br>I 4,'.', !. :,: J it- -:.-: ,, ...<br><br>,/
I ,_J
;o Il rl i, ii ?[1i
:()
'.
.<br>

¶61

CRIMINAL Pl::TlTlON lS DISPOSED C F'

¶62

Pr"rs., ru.[ *{o^r'

Smt. Maram Sugunamma v. State of telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maram Sugunamma 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

Katakam Bhaskara Chary Vs Dr. Poloju Shruthi

G.Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

J. Abhishek Vs The State of Telangana

Puli Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri N.Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Bandari Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana