Partly allowed

Bandaru Govardhan and 2 others v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023CRLP/8932/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed proceedings against accused parents in dowry harassment case. Petitioners sought quashing of charge sheet. Specific allegations against the husband remained, but bald allegations against his parents residing elsewhere were insufficient. Petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/A2 & A3 in CC No. 3968 of 2021 quashed on the grounds of insufficiency of allegations.

Bandaru Govardhan and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³²⁵¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION Noi 8932 ol 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bandaru Govardhan, S/o B.Y.Vishnu prasad, Aged 33 years, Occ Software Engineer, Rl/o H.No.-3-105/3/tu5, Gudduru^- Ramarima Nilayam, Sri Laxminagar Colony, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Diskict-s0OOgS N/o H.No.10248/lB, Teacher's Colony, Gudiwada, Kris6na District.

¶9

Bandaru Yedukondala Vishnu Prasad, S/o Janardhan Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ A.O. in MPDO Office, Gudiwada, R/o H.No.10248/iB, fealher's C6tony, Gudiwada, Krishna District.

¶10

Smt.Bandaru Venkata Ralegwar!, W/o yedukondala Vishnu prasad, Aged S.2years, Occ Household, R/o H.No.10248/.18, Teacher's Colony, Gudiwata, Krishna District-

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangala, Repr by its Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of lelangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1

¶14

2 Smt.Chemidishetty Mamatha, Wo Bandaru Govardhan, Aged 30 years, Occ Household, Rl/o Plot No lQQ,-_-Ro_aQ. !.J9,13, HyOalainagai Cotony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-500070. Cell : 96426485t5.

¶15

...Respondent No.2/Defacto.Complainant

¶16

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 records and quash the Charge Sheet in C.b.trto.SgOa ot 2021 on the file of v Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶17

l.A NO: 1OF 2021

¶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 grant stay of a[ further proceedings in c.c.No.396g o] 2021 on rhe

¶19

:] ,l'I il

¶20

¶21

file of V Additional lvletropolitan lvlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s. RAJ KISHORE MISHRA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8932^{OF 2O2L}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is hled by^{the petitioners/Alto 43} to qnash the proceedings in C.C.No.3968^{of 2021 on the flie} of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Ranga Reddy} District.

¶29

The allegations of the 2nd respondent^{against the} petitioners/Al to A'3 are that she married^A.1 on 20.06.2019 in Hyderabad and dowry of Rs.S.OO lakhs cash, 28^{tulas of} gold and other customary gifts were also given. A1 started harassing the complainantf 2nd respondent stating^{that she} was not good looking and did not have physical relation^with her, causing menta-l stress. A2 and ,A.3 were staying^at Gudiwada and A1 and was staying at ECIL, Hyderabad.^A1 demalded his father-in-law money for developing^poultry business. One month after marriage, A1 went to Norway^{on a} Job visa.

¶30

Land was purchased from one of the relatives and the complainant provided amount. A1 promised that the land will

¶31

)

¶32

be registered in her name also. However, A1 registered the proper$r in his name. At the time of marriage, A1 was having several loans, which was not disclosed. A1 used to state that the complainant was staying at home without doing any work except eating food. A1 again asked for Rs.4O.00 lakhs to be given by the father_in_law towards additional dowry. A2 and, A'3 were supporting A,1 in aI the alleged acts of harassing the complainalt for dowr5r.

¶33

A1 shifted to Boduppal, Hyderabad and was staying there. A.2 and A3 did not invite the complainant on Saakranti festiva_l but invited only A1. After returning from the parents house, A1 started harassing her menta_lly stating that she was not bearing children. Al was talking to friends over phone. The harassment of A1 was informe d to A2,however, A,2 stated that A,1 was not that kind of a person. Unable to bear the harassment of these petitioners, complaint was hled.

¶34

On the basis of the said complaint, the police filed charge sheet agajnst these petitioners after investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Al to A3 would submit that a,lt false allegations are made. Except stating that there

-y'

ru..r.tlq

was demand for additional dowry, no proof is hled to substantiate such clairn

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that serious allegations a,re made against all the petitioners. Specilic events ald instalces are narrated in the statement of tJle complainant accusing each of the petitioners. A'2 and A'3 are liable for supporting A1 in all aspects when A1 was harassing her for additional dowry and had taken amounts from complainant and her father. Though A1 promised to register the land in the name of the complainant, however, he had registered in his own narne after taking money from her. A11 these aspects clearly indicate that all these petitioners have harassed the complainant, for which reason, the proceedings cannot be quashed and it is for the trial Court to decide on the basis of the evidence adduced on record the complicity of A1 to A,3.

¶40

There are many instances which are narrated against ,A.1 regarding demand for additional dowry, beating and also insulting the complainalt.

¶41

¶42

In respect of A2 and A.3, the parents of A1, they were staying at Gudiwada right from the date of marriage. The complainant never stayed along with A,2 and A,3 nor there are arty allegations that A,2 and 43 have stayed along with 41 arld harassed the complainant. Except making bald allegation that A2 and 43 supported their son, nothing is attributed to A2 and A'3 to infer that there was any kind of harassment.

¶43

To attract an offence under Section 4gg_A of IpC, the husband or the relatives of the husband should have conducted themselves in such deliberately manner which is of a nature to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury either mentally or physically. Further any such harassment with a view to coercing any person related to the wife to meet any unlawful demand would fulfill the ingredients of Section 4gg_A of IpC.

¶44

It is admitted that A2 andA3 stayed at Gudiwada, which is nearly 250 kms from Hyderabad. It cannot be said that when complainant never stayed with 41, only on the basis of the bald allegations stating that A.2 and 43 had supported A1

¶45

¶46

I I

¶47

-i=-v

¶48

¶49

when he harassed the complainant, would not sufhce to continue the crimina-l prosecution against ,{2 and A3.

¶50

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of B.ihar l(2O22) 6 Supreme Court Cases 5991, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed.

¶51

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta / v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Suprerne Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

¶52

Since there are specihc allegations against ,.A.1, this Court is not inclined to extend any relief and accordingly, prayer for quashing the proceedings against A1 is disrnissed. However, the proceedings against A2 and 43 are liable to be quashed.

¶53

¶54

¶55

74 In the result, the proceedings against petitioners /A2 & A.3 in C.C.No.3968 of 2O2I on the hle of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District,

¶56

a-re hereby quashed

¶57

Criminal petition is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if aly, shar stand closed.

¶58

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN oFFICER

To,

The V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶64

The station House officer, women porice station, Rachakonda District. 3. Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, High court for the state or retanga;a at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶65

One CC to Mr. PAPA|AH pEDDAKULA; Advocate [OpUC]

¶66

One CC to Mis. RAJ KTSHORE M|SHRA, nOvocate 1OeUb1

¶67

Two CD Copies

¶68

kam

¶69

HIGH COURT DATED:1811112023

¶70

i . I ,:.

¶71

¶72

tJ? 1EL4
,...
'!) .9
4
s
()
o \t<br>
H I t<br>

¶73

ORDER CRLP.No.8932 of 2021a.

¶74

:
a).
,:.::.
...
THE CRIMINAL PETITION
IS ALLOWED IN PART
|.
-f ',i :.. ,.
lr,
t.1
l?
,.4{ I tr'\ ,
I s*t {...:r .
. i{-'' 7' . I | '. i'
,:ti.t, .
: ;'
:':.::- : ,.'i 'ii .
.,, 'l i.
V 1:
$

Bandaru Govardhan and 2 others v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Govardhan and 2 others v. 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

Katakam Rajeshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Parvez Chand Syed Vs The State of Telangana

Madasu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Shoukath Banu Vs The State of Telangana

Dommati Raj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Challa Srinivas Reddy, Vs The Sate of Telangana