Allowed

N.Madhavi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Feb 2023CRLP/7156/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners A4 to A7 in two criminal petitions regarding alleged dowry death due to vague omnibus allegations. The proceedings against petitioners A2 to A4 were dismissed, noting their prior acquittal. The Court also critiqued the Magistrate's failure to mention penal provisions in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners A4 to A7 in CRLP No. 7156 of 2022 and CRLP No. 7276 of 2022 are quashed; CRLP No. 7156 of 2022 allowed; CRLP No. 7276 of 2022 allowed in part.

N.Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

cRt INAL PETITION NO : 7156 A ND 7276 0F 2022

¶7

CRIMINAL PET TION NO: 7156 0F 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

N.lr4adhavi, wo. N.Dharanider Reddy, aged about 35 years, occ- Housewife, R/o-H.No, 8-2-467131i, Ftat No.401, Hiit Christ Apaitmenis, San;ira-fiiiii, Hyderabad(A-5)

¶10

D. K Latha @ Pavith-ratha, W/o. K.prashanth Kumar Reddy, aged about 37 yeap, Q99- Housewife, Rl/o.Ftat No.45-C, Opp- Andhra Br;i, MLS;b;l;ny, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.(4-6)

¶11

K.Prashanth Kumar Reddy, S/o K.Veera Reddy, Aged aboul 38 years, Occ- Software^{professiondl,} Ft/o.Flat No.45_C, Opp^"Andhra eun[, fuLS;. Colony, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.(A-7)

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telanqana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the StateofTelangana]Hyderabaa:^{- -- """"}

¶15

N.Vinila, Wo.N.Bhanu^prakash Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ_ Advocate, RIo. H. No. 1 0-22, Vidyanagar Cotony, poihireddypatiy, S;g;A;y

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under section 482 of cr. p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners in .c.c.No. 197 of 2021 on the file of Honble Additional Judicial First-Class lvlagistrate at Sangareddy, in the interest of justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be

¶20

pleased to stay al further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in c.c No. 197 )f 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Additiorr;:r Jr-rdicial First-class Magistrate at San, lareddy, pending disposal of the above C.inrinal petition.

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITI f N tJO: 7276 OF 2022

¶22

Between

¶23

1 N.Shekar R:ddy, S/o. Late Laxmi Narsimha Reodv tA-2) aged about 70

¶24

years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No. g-2-467t3.1, il;t No 401 , Hill Christ Apartments, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.(A-1 )

¶25

2 N.Kousalya (A-3), W/o. N.Shekar Reddy. age j al,out 66 years, Occ. House,vife Rt/o H.No 8-2-467t3t1, Ftat Nio +0r",-:rirf C.r..ti npirtrireniil Banjara Hills Hyderabad.(A-2)

¶26

J N.Dharanide' Reddy, S/o. N.Shekar Reddv aqe<l about 40 years, Occ. Busine;s R/o.H.No 8-2-467t3t1, flat f.ro.+Oi,"ifir Chrisi npi.trirenii, Banjara Hills Hyderabad.(A-3)

¶27

..PEI I I lOt\ ERS/ACCUSED

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Ilq^{Stgtgof telangana, Rep. by its pubtic prosecutor,Hiqh Court for the} State ot I elangana, Hyderabad.

¶30

2 N.Vinila, W/o N.Bhanu Prakash Reddy, Aged about 35 yerars, Occ. Advocate, F/o. H.No. I C -22, V idyanagar Cotony, poihireOdypatiy, t;r"gi*ddy.^{-' - --'"'}

¶31

...RESPONDE NTS/COMPLAINANT

¶32

Petition ur der Section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memo'andum of Grounds of criminal petition, the l{igh court may be pleased to quas r arl further proceedings against the pe:itioners in c.c. No. '197 of 2021 on the fire of Additional Judicial First-c:lass Magistrate at Sangareddy, in the irterest of justice.

¶33

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶34

Petition unde sectron 482 of cr.p.c praying lhat ir the circumstances stated in the Memor andum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings incruding the aopearance of the petitioners in c.c. Ir o. 19T of 2oz1 on the file of Additional .tudicial First-class Magistrate at sangar eddy, pending disposal of the above crirrinal petition

¶35

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T S ANIRUDH REDDY ,Advocate for the in both Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Both RespondentsNO.l and SRI SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Both Respondents No.2

¶36

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶37

THE I.I ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SIIR3,IIIDI}R CRIMII\ AL PETITION Nos.7156 and'i276 ot-2022

¶38

COMMON ORDER:

¶39

i. Criminal Petition No.7156 of 2022 is filed to^quashthe proceedings agE inst the petitioners/A5 to A7 in C.C.\o.197 of 2O2l on the file o] Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate^at Sangaredd.y.

¶40

Criminal Petition No.7276 of 2022 is filed to quash^the proceedings aga inst the petitioners/ A2 to A4 in C.C No. 197 of 2O2l on the fiie of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate^at Sangerreddv.

¶41

Petitioners in both the petitions, who are A2 to A7 are aggrieved bS tt e orders of the learned Magistrate directing the issuance of sur rmons, by taking cognizance againsl them on an application mad: be the 2"d respondent.

¶42

It is the ca;e ol the 2"d respondent tl.at she was married to A1 and at the time :f marriage, demand was made for <lowry, as such, 68 tr-rlas ol golcl, Rs.24.00 lakhs cash, silver and other articles nere also givcn. Rs.2 ).00 lakhs u,as spent for performinl; the marriage. After merrri:rge, Z,"r respondent^joined husband and in-laws (A2 to A4), rvho u,cre s-aving in the same flat. A1 and petitionerslA2 to

¶43

¶44

¶45

A.4 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically ald mentally to get additional dowry for settling certain civil disputes before the Lok Adalat. A1 used to beat the 2"d respondent at the instance of these petitioners to get properties from her father and since it was not given, the harassment increased. On 31.01.201g, these petitioners threatened to get additional dowry and since 2nd respondent expressed inability, A1 threatened to kill with a licenced pistol and she was necked out ol the house at the instigation of these petitioners.

¶46

Though the 2"d respondent tried to get back into the house the doors were shut and she had to go to her parents,house. While staying in her house, though several attempts were made by the parents of the 2na respondent to settle the issues, A1 and these petitioners were adamant. Though the 2"a respondent narrated all these facts before the police, the police filed final report deleting the names of these petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent hled protest application and the learned Magistrate having recorded the statements of the 2"d respondent and three other witnesses passed the impugned order.

¶47

Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri T.Anirudhreddy, learned counsel for the

¶48

¶49

petitioners wol ld submit that the Magistrate had :ommitted error in taking cogn zance and issuing summons to tt.ese petitioners. Considering thr compliant and other statements of witnesses, there are vague ald cmnibus allegations that are levele^ against these petitioners, for vhich reason, the proceedings cannrt be continued and the satne hiLve to be quashed.

¶50

7 . Learned c ounsel appearing for the 2n,r res;tond,:nt would submit that u hen there are clear allegations against these petitioners/A2 t', AT and their na-rnes were also mentioned during the course of inr estigation. The police have deliberar.ly deleted the names in the ct arge sheet in collusion with the petir,iorrers. The names of the pe litioners have been specificall). merrrion<:d stating that thel,were re sponsible in harassing the 2.d respcnrlent and the learned Magistra:e has rightly taken cognizance, against them. The petitioners have tc face trial and prayed to dismiss thrr petitions. q The main llround on which the 2na respondr:nt sought to prosecute the pe:itioners is that the police during ttre r:ourse of investigation hav,: colluded with these petitioners atrl concluded that these petitio:ters did not inflict any kind of cru(rlly. The said report of the po lice was on the basis of examinarion of two witnesses, who are maid servant (L.W.6) and supervi,;or (t,.W.7) of

¶51

¶52

Hill Apartments, Banj arah ls, where the petitioners and A 1 were staying.

¶53

Counsel further argued that the Learned Magistrate found that the 2nd respondent, father, mother and one Mogul Reddy, cobrother of father of the 2"a respondent had clearly testified that A2 to A7 had harassed the 2nd respondent. However, their names were deleted. The names of these petitioners were mentioned in the statements made to the police, but the police committed error in not filing the charge sheet against the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance issued summons to the petitioners/A2 to AZ. As there is no infirmity in the order of the Learned Magistrate, petitions have to be dismissed.

¶54

The events that are narrated by p.W. 1 clearly make a mention about A1 beating the 2"d respondent and deman for additional dowry. The allegation as far as the petitioners 2 to 7 is concerned, it is stated that these petitioners instigated A1 and also at the time of marriage customary ,adapaduchu katnam, was given. The narration in both Section 161 Cr.p.C statements and the statements made before the Court at the time of protest petition mentioned about the complicity of the petitioners on account of their instigating .A1. A2 and A3, parents,in-law and Al/husband

¶55

)

¶56

are responsiblt for the initial demand of dowry^{.lr1d subsequent} additional demi Lnd that was made.

¶57

I 1 . In the c rse of Geeta Mehrotra and^{anr>ther v.Uttar} Pradeshl in ;rhich the Hon'ble Supreme Cc'urt held^that continuation of proceedings against whom the^{specific instances of} harassment ar( not narrated, the same are liable to^{be quashed.} The Hon'ble Surreme Court in the case of^Pawan l(umar^{v. State} of Haryanaz h:-d cautioned the courts of innocen.^personsbeing prosecuted witl, ulterior motive and the courts hilve the duty to separate such ir rdividuals by scrutinizing the circuntstances.^{In the} case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhandr, the^Hon'ble Supreme Coult observed that in complaint of harassment, there is a tendlncv ol implicating the relatives of the husband arrd for the sail reason, the Honble Supreme Cor-rrt suggested that necessary changes have to be made to tht l:rovisions of law by appropr,ate legislation.

¶58

Prima fac e case is made out against A'2 a.ltcl 43^parents in law. This Crurt is not inclined to quash the^proceedings against the pet tioners 1 and 2lA2 and A3 in Cr[.P.No.7276 of

¶59

' izorz;^{ro scc zat} t atR t998 sc 95g t l2OlO) 7 Supreme C )urt (lases 667

However, insofar as 44 to A7 are concerned, omnibus nature of allegations about being complicit of instigating Ai appears improbable and their names have been mentioned only to make them accused to face criminal trial. Only for the reason of naming the petitioners/A4 to A7 as the persons responsible for instigating A 1 would not suffice to permit continuance of the criminal proceedings.

¶64

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar4, the Honble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific 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.

¶65

In view of the above judgments and also the nature of omnibus allegations made against petitioners/A4 to A7, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against them. Before parting, the learned Magistrate having followed the procedure passed the impugned order. However, there is no mention of the penal provisions under which cognizance was 4 (20221 6 Supreme Court Cases 599

¶66

¶67

¶68

taken by the learned Magistrate in the order. In the said circumstances of taking cognzance of a privat,: compliant or protest petitior made by the complainant, it is imperative that the Magistrates pass speaking orders and al;o denote the basic ingredierts that are attracted to make out an offence. It is necessary t-rat the penal provisions are also mentioned while taking :ogrtizance against the accusecL and issue summons.

¶69

In the resrLlt, the proceedings against 3.a petitioner/A4 in Ci..P.No.7276 tf 2022 and petitioners 1 to 37AS to A7 ln crl.P.No.7156 i.r c.c.No.r97 of 2o2r oa the rrle or Additionai Judicia-l First r)lass Magistrate at Sangareddy, are hereby quashed.

¶70

Accordingll., the Criminal petition No.T2T6 of 2022 is allowed in part and Crimina_l petition No.7156 of 2022 is allowed. Conseqt ently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dispos ed.

¶71

SDI.P^(;OWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// - l) :;ECTION OFFICER

¶72