Allowed

Kummara Ravindra Kummar , Ravindra Kummara v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRLP/9986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings FIR C.C. No. 574 of 2017 against husband and parents-in-law following a divorce settlement. The court held that vague allegations of money demand without proof of harassment do not constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 574 of 2017 against the petitioners are quashed. Miscellaneous applications are closed.

Kummara Ravindra Kummar , Ravindra Kummara Vs The State… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO :9986 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Kummara Ravindra Kummar @ Ravindra Kummara, S/o Seshasayana Rao, eS.gO g9 yrs, Occ..unemployed, R:/o FIat No.4.l52, 4th Block Janapriya ' lVetro polis, Motinagar, Hyderabad ..^petitioner / Accused No.1

¶8

2 Kummara 9eshasayana Rao, Q/o Satyanarayan, Aged.B2 yrs, Occ.Retd Employee,_R/o Flat No.504, 1st Block, J-anaprifa nOoOie, Gandhinagar, Neai Golkonda Cross Roads, Hyderabad. .. petitiorier/ Accused No.2

¶9

3 Smt. Kummara Kamala, W/o _ Seshasayana Rao, Aged.76 yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o FIat No.504, 1st Block, Jan'apriya Abode, Gandhindgar, l.,lear Golkonda Cross Roads, Hyderabad. ..petitioner/ Accused No. 3

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Smt.Kalpana Birusumanthi @ falpana, W/o Ravindra Kummara, Age. 50, Occ. Bank Emptoyee R/o H.NO. 155/2RT, VijayanagarColony, Hydtraba'd.

¶13

...RESPONDENT No.2 /COMpLAtNANT

¶14

Petition under section 482 oI cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in c.c.No.s74t2017 on the File of Hon'ble Xlll Addl. chief [r,4etropolitan lvlagistrate court at Hyderabad against the petitioners.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.57412017 on the File of Hon'ble xlll Addl. chief lvletropolitan Magistrate court at Hyderabad, including the appearance of the Petitioners .

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 of 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 574 of 2O\7, on the hle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶23

on 2. A compiaint was filed by the 2nd respondent 24.O7.2015 alleging that the 1st petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are parents-in-1aw. Their marriage took place on 27.lO.2OOI and on 25.12.2OO4,2",t respondent gave birth to a daughter. In the year 2006, she was tra.nsferred to City Bank, Chennai Branch, Madras. She was harassed to get Rs. 10.00 lakhs for purchase of flat.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners u,ould submit that the Family Court Judge at Hyderabad by order datecl 21.10.20i3 in FCOP No.573 of 20 13 grantccl divorce to the 1't petitioner and 2'd respondent. An attempt nas made before the Family Court to set aside the exparte divorce orders. However, the Family CougL, by order dated 17.03.2016 refused to entertain the appiication to set aside the expanle order.

¶25

Even prior to the said proceedings, the 2"d respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Transfer Petition (C) No.1093 of 2072 reqwesting the court to transfer the proceedings. Accordingly, the Honble Supreme Court transferred the proceedings from Family Court Chennai to Family Court at Hyderabad. Though the divorce petition was transferred at 2"d Respondent's instance, she did not prosecute the sarne and divorce was granted.

¶26

Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Miyan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherl. In the said case, the wife Iiled crimina-l case which was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 325,504 and 506 of IpC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. The said case was hled four years a-fter the divorce had taken place. Taking into consideration that there was divorce by the time of iiling the complaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the quash petition.

¶27

' Criminal Appeal No. t0{8 of 20 t8, daled I I .0S.10 I 8

f I

On behalf of the Respondents it was argued that the divorce was ar. ex-parte order and cannot be made basis to quash the proceedings. Further the prosecution has to be given an opportunity to make out its case by adducing evidence during trial, for which reasons, the petition has to be dismissed.

¶32

In the present case, vague ailegation against these petitioners is that there was demand of Rs.1O.0O lakhs. Apart from the said allegation, there are no other allegations to substantiate that any offence is made out under Section 498-A IPC. Further the complaint was lodged after al year of divorce. The question of demanding money alter divorce is highly improbable.

¶33

The allegation of mere demand made in the complaint, without any consequent physical or mental harassment, does not fall within the meaning of 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498-A of IPC. In the present circumstances, this Court

¶34

¶35

¶36

deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶37

8 In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No. 574 of 2OI7 on the fiie of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶38