Allowed

Arun Sathunoori v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023CRLP/9347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against five petitioners under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. Relying on the Family Court's finding that the wife deserted the husband and the resulting dissolution of marriage, the court held that the allegations were bald and not credible, especially regarding the date of expulsion from the home. The court deemed it appropriate to quash the proceedings in

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.78O of 2022 against petitioners 1 to 5 are quashed; Criminal Petition allowed.

Arun Sathunoori Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s1 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:9347 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Arun Sathunoori, S/o Dr.S.Veeraswamy, Aged 39 yrs Occ- Unemployed, R/o Peruvancha Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

Sathunoori Saroja, Wo Dr.S.Veeraswamy, Aged 62 yrs Occ- Housewife, R/o Peruvancha Village, Kalluru lr/andal, Khammam District.

¶10

Sathunoori Veeraswamy,, S/o Late S. tt/araiah Aged 70 yrs Occ- Govt. Doctor (Retd.), R/o Peruvancha Village, Kalluru [r,4andal, Khammam District.

¶11

Thota Samatha, Wo ltrlanohar Aged 40 yrs Occ- Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.5-243, Secretanat Cc Puppalaguda Post, Rajendranagar fu4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Thota Manohar, S/o T. Narayana Murthy Aged 50 yrs Occ- Govt. Service, R/o PIot No.5-243, Secretariat Colony, Puppalaguda Post, Rajendranagar tvlandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

...PETITIONERYACCUSED 1 to 5

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶17

Station House Officer, V.M.Bangera Police Station, Khammam District

¶18

Sathunoori Sravani, Wo S. Arun R/o Door No.9-169, New Gayathri Nagar, Jillelaguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Pvt-Employee Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT

¶20

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 relating to C.C.No.7BO of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class tr/agistrate, Sathupally, Khammam District and quash the same so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶21

l.A. NO:^{1 OF 2022}

¶22

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 condonethe delay of 20 days causedin resubmissionof present} criminal^{petitionand pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'bleCourt} deems fit^{and proper in the circumstancesof the case in the interestof justice.}

¶23

l.A. NO:2^{OF 2022}

¶24

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 all further proceedings in C,C.No.78Oof 2022 on the} file of Additional^{Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally, KhammamDistrict,} including^{appearanceof the petitionersin court,pendingdisposal of the main} quash proceedings^{in the interest of justice.}

¶25

This Petition^{comingon for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of^{Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof} the Sri V V^{RAGHAVAN ,Advocatefor the Petitioner and of} Additional^{Public Prosecutor on behalf of the RespondentNo.1 and} None Appeared^{for the RespondentNo'2}

¶26

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9347 OF 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.78O of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally, Khammam District.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1.t respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶32

The 2"a respondent, who is the wife of a 1 filed complaint stating that she was married to A1 on 24.05.2014. They lead happy marital life for sometime. However, she did not conceive, for which reason, the petitioners started abusing her stating that she was a sterile woman and not conceiving. Further, the petitioners also alleged that the 2"d respondent was having illegal contacts with others. On 13 .O7 .2022, all these petitioners sent the 2"d respondent out of the house and threatened that if she came back, she would be killed. On the advise ol elders, criminal complaint was fi1ed on 2O.O7.2O22. The said Crime was registered and

¶33

¶34

investigated by the police. After completion of investigation,^police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

¶35

L,earned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that bald allegations are made against these petitioners and in fact, it is the 2'd respondent, who had deserted the husband and for the reason of husband/ lst petitioner frling divorce application in the month of June, 2022, tlre present Crime was filed in the month of July, 2022 alleging harassment. The Family Court has ordered the Divorce Petition and dissolved the marriage of the 2"d respondent and A1.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations are leveled against these petitioners and that they have to undergo criminal trial. He further submits that the 2"d respondent was necked out of the house and tlrese petitioners have threatened the 2"a respondent not to return. It is a clear case of cruelty and the petitioners have to undergo criminal trial.

¶37

Admittedly, A1 frled Divorce Petition on the ground of desertion for more than 2 years and also on the ground that the 2.d respondent was not leading conjugal life with A1 and humiliating

¶38

I t

¶39

A1. The Family Court Judge has dissolved the marriage of the 2"4 respondent and A1 believing that thc 2nd respondent has deserted A.1 and humiliated A1. Since A1 had made out a case of desertion of high degree cruelty, the Family Court found favour with the claims of A1 and dissolved the marriage.

¶40

7 . Even according to the complaint, the only allegation against these petitioners is that there were passing remarks for not conceiving. Except the said allegation, there is no other allegation against these petitioners. The Divorce Petition was filed in the month of June, 2022 and notices were sent to the 2'd respondent. However, in the month of Ju1y, 2022, present Criminal complaint is filed alleging that on 13.07.2022, she was sent out of the house by all these petitioners.

¶41

\ \

¶42

In the back ground of Divorce Petition being frled in the month of June, 2022, the allegation that the 2.d respondent was sent out of the house on 13.07.2022 cannot be believed. Further, the Family Court has also found that the 2"d respondent had deserted A1 and the said order dated 23.11.2022 has not been questioned either before the Family court or this court. Since bald allegations are leveled against these petitioners in the back ground of disputes between the 2"a respondent and A1/ 1"t petitioner, this

¶43

-1

¶44

Court deems it appropriate to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners.

¶45

In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A1 to A5 in C.C.No.780 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally, Khammam District, are hereby quashed.

¶46

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a-llowed. Miscellaleous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally Khammam District

¶52

The Station House Officer, Police Station V.M Bangera, Khamma District. One CC to SRl. V V RAGHAVAN, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶54

tr Two CD Copies SB bLw

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.9347 ot 2022

.' 1HE S 14 &- q
f,
o I 5 trll.H 20?3 t,
it

i1 I,i.!r..]C,,

¶61

ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT GOSTS

¶62

I
Beh
ql=\u

Arun Sathunoori v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Sathunoori v. The 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

Kandavalli Vasundhara Vs The State of Telangana and another

Kurra Ramesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s.Blue Dart Express Limited. Vs The State of Telangana

Basheera Begam Vs The State of Telarnlana

Abdul Khaleed Shaik Vs State of Telagana

Induri Ram Mohan Vs The State of Telangana And another