Allowed

Gunti Revathi v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC19 Jan 2023CRLP/8324/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that the charge of marrying again while a subsisting marriage existed (Section 494 IPC) did not attract as the petitioner was unmarried. Charges of threat (Section 506 IPC) were deemed untenable due to vague allegations and lack of specific narration of the insult or thr

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 2820 of 2021 are quashed.

Gunti Revathi Vs The State of Telangana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^s2s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TfiE STATE OF TELANGANA '_" AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THRii

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 8324 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gunti Revathi, W/o. Kamineni.Vijaya Babu, Aged. 39 yrs, Occ. pvt. Employee, R/o Andheri Mumbai, N/o H.No. 3_6-260, Ftat ttoior, IVladhuri Mansion, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad_T. S presenfly Residing at USA

¶9

AND

¶10

...pETtTtONERyACCUSED No.s

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court at

¶12

Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt. Kamineni Durga, Wo,K Vijaya Babu, Aged. 31 yrs, Occ. pvt. Employee Fl/o H.No. 'l-9-28, FIat No.30.t Vidyuthnrgrr,-N"* Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Presently Residing at:_ H.No. .1-9_28, Flat No.301 , Vidyuthnagar, New Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT No. ?COMpLAtNANT

¶15

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar ietition, the High court may be pteased to euash the proceedings in c.c. No.zazotlzoit "i ,rr" il,"'", Hon'ble rrr Additionar Junior civir Judge-cum-rr Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District against the- petitioner.

¶16

l.A. NO:1 oF 2021

¶17

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition, the High court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings in C.C. No.2820l;;ra;:; i" r,,"'", Hon'ble Irr Additionar Junior civir Judge-cum-* Additionar tvtetropotitan Magistrate' Ranga Reddy District, incruding-1he appearance of the petitioner. (As per the court order Dated 19-01-2023 in r.A. 112022, court name is amended in Crl.p.No. 832412021)

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tne fulemorandum of Grounds of Crinrirral Petition and upon hearing the a .gumr:nts of Sri p. VAMSHEEDHAR R=DDy, Advocate for the petitioner and t re pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Rer;pondent No. 1 and none appeared for th: Respondent No. 2.

¶19

The Court made thl following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8324 0F 202L

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) by the 1n petitioner-Accused No.5 to quash the proceedings C.C.No.2820 of 2O2l pending on the hle of III Additiona-l Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner/A5 are under Sections 498-A, 494, 406, 417, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal code and Section 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the record.

¶25

The 2na respondent filed a complaint stating that she was married to Accused No.1 and therea-fter she had a child. At the time of marriage, dor^rry was also given. There are severa-l differences between the 2"d respondent and Accused No.l. However, the allegation against this petitioner is that she married Accused No.1 rvhile the marriage of 2"d respondent and

¶26

Accused No. I rvas subsisting. The 2"a respon^j(: nt and her family memb€rs $,'ent to the house of Accused Nr. I v'here this petitioner was prosent and lvhen questioned, it i,; alleged that this petitione ' threatened the 2"d respondr:nt e rrrl Lrer family members

¶27

l,earned Counsel appearing for the pe'il.ioner would submit that z ccording to the charge sheet, this Jrr:titioner who is arrayed as Accused No.5 was charged for the rl'fences under Section 494 rmd 5O6 of the Indian Penal Cocle. f{oqever, it is not the case 'rf the prosecution that this petitionr:r w,as already married and married Accused No.1 second time. Only in such event of subsisting marriage, marrying again, ar offence under Section 494 )f the Indian Penal Code wolrld b,r atti:acted. He also relied u pon the Judgment rendered by t rr.l Honourable Supreme CorLrt in PotshoLura Singh a. State qf PunJabt. Tne Honourable iupreme Court while adjudicating a case under similar circu rrstances held that a subsisting rnarriage is the basic ingredi:nt to attract an offence under Seoiion 494 when such spouse marries again.

'^{zozo(r t) scc;+t}

1 I

I I

In the present case, admittedly, this petitioner was not already married. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 494 is not attracted.

¶32

In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.p.C and the complaint filed by the 2"a respondent, it is stated that when the family members of the 2"d respondent went to the house of Accused No. 1, this petitioner was present there and she also threatened them with dire consequences. It appears that an altercation took place, when the 2",i respondent went to the house of Accused No.l. There is no narration as to what the petitioner had stated and in lvhat manner she has threatened of causing any injury to the 2"d respondent or the family members. On a vague allegation that the petitioner had threatened 2"d respondent, charge under Section 506 of IpC cannot be maintained. On such omnibus allegations being made, the petitioner cannot be made to go through criminal trial.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against this petitioner-A5 in C.C.No.2820 of 2O2l pending on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill

¶34

¶35

Additional I {etropolitaa Magistrate, Ranga Rerlcrv l)istrict, are quashed. Tte Court below may proceed against olher accused.

¶36

Miscel aneous applications pending. if a,v, :shall stand

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sdr. 1. 5;1Y4 PARVATHT ASSI,STAhIT REGISTEAR

¶43

¶44

J:;EC TION OFFICER

¶45

The tll Adr litional Jr Magistrate, nrng" n"oJl'3r,civil^{Judge-cum-lll Acditional} Metropolitan

¶46

The Station l- ouse Officer, Saroornagar Women police {)t::rtion, Rachakonda

¶47

' Iy;":r?:J:ril8ri'o'"^{Prosecutor' Hish courtror the rltate rr retansana} at

¶48

¶49

One CC to SIlt. p VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate []pUCl

¶50

Two CD Copi,rs

HIGH COUR

KS, J

DA]-ED: 19t01t2023

ORDER

CRI-P.No.B3i4 of 2021

¶57

..'41
:- i .1.. STAr€
o,.l
c
?<br>I d ttttBzrn ,i)
l
\ t- ,,,,Y
-- IJFC tlATC.t
.-:={:a

¶58

Allowed the Clriminal petition

¶59

(r<br>?Y ,

Gunti Revathi v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunti Revathi v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Syed Jaffar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Md.Ghouse , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha

Tholem Sambaiah Vs the State of A.P. and 54 Others

Panjala Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana

Chine Balakrishna Vs The State of Telangana