Allowed

Vemu Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2024CRLP/1281/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a dowry-related suicide case. The court held that family members cannot be prosecuted merely on omnibus allegations when specific overt acts are not established for each individual. Proceedings against petitioners were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 1002 of 2017 against petitioners were quashed and stayed.

Vemu Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132571

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 1281 and3221 OF 2019

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1281 OF 20'19

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vemu fVluralidhar, Sio. Krishna Murthy, 33^years, Contract Employee in Electricity Dept., rio. H.No.25-34-7-C, Mallikarjunanagar, RC Puram

¶10

Smt. Sujathamma, Wo. Ramesh, aged 40^years, r/o. H.no. 4-2-94, DV Colony, Hindupur, Anantapur District.

¶11

,..PETITIONERS/44 TO A5

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Through The Station House Officer, Moyapur Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana.

¶14

Mr. Avadhanam Rama Murthy, S/o. Late Ramana Murthy, 57^years, Occ. Govt. Teacher, r/o. H.no.'15-9C-10-3-3-1 , Nandikotkur village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/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 the records relating to and connected with S.C.No. 100212017, on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, and quash the same in so far as Petitioners/A4 and A5 are concerned. t

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further^proceedings in S.C.No. 100212017, on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, in so far as PetitionerslA4 and A5 are concerned including their appearance,^pending disposal of the above criminal^petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. G. Jhansi, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3221 OF 2019

¶21

Between:

¶22

Vemu Krishnamurthy, S/o. venkata Subbaiah, 68^yrs., Occ- Retd. Erryployee, r/o. H.no. 25-34-7-C, Mallikarjuna Nagar, RC Puram, Sangareddy District.

¶23

Smt. Vemu Shyamalamma, W/O Krishna Murthy, Aged about 62^{years, r/o.} H.no.25-34-7-C, Mallikarjuna Nagar, RC Puram, Sangareddy District.

¶24

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Telangana,, through SHO, Miyaur Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶27

Mr. Avadhanam Rama Murthy, S/o. Late Ramanamurthy, 587^years, r/o. H.no. 1 5-9C-10-3-3-1 , Nandikotkur village and mandal, Kurnool District. (died)

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶29

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 the records relating to and connected with SC. No. 1002 of 2017, on the file of XV Addl. Dist. Judge-cum-XVl Metropolitan Sessions Judgecum-ll Addl. Family Court, R.R.Dist at Kukatpally, and^quash the same in so far as petitioners/A2 and A3 are concerned.

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶31

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 order stay of all further proceedings in .SC. No. 1002 of 2017, on the file of XV Addl. Dist. Judge-cum-XVl Metropolitan sessions Judge-cum-ll Addl. Family Court, R.R.Dist at Kukatpally, including appearance in so far as petitioners/A2 & A3 are concerned, pending disposal of the above Crl.P..

¶32

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri lsmail Katubadi, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION Nos.r28l AND 3221 OF 2019

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

As both these petitions are prefemed for quashment of proceedings in the same case i.e. S.c.No. 1002 of 2017 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, these are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I and perused the record. None appeared for respondent No.2.

¶38

Petitioners who are A.2 to A.5 in the aloresaid crime, are the family members of A. l. The daughter of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant was married to A. l. The allegation against the petitioners herein is that they, being the family members of A.l, have harassed the daughter of the complainant to bring additional dowry, due to which, she commited suicide. Therefore, they are charged with the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC.

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that the petitionerslA.4 and A.5 were not residing with A. I and the deccased, and that the couple lived in uSA

¶40

¶41

ts, l Crl.P.Nos. I 2a 7 &32 Z 7 of 20 79

¶42

[.1

¶43

for same time and thereafter retumed to l{yderabad. It is contended that there is no evidence against them and no specific overt-acts are alleged against them except the self-styled statements ol the interested witnesses i.e. family members of the 2nd respondent / de lacto cornplainant

¶44

The record discloses that the deceased was manied to A.1 in the year 2014. A.4 and A.5 i.e. the brother and sister of A. I were rnarried and .,staying away from the family of A. 1. A perusal of the statements of witnesses disclose that though they all have stated that the petitioners herein have harassed the deceased for additional dowry, no specific overlacts are narrated against each of them as to the manner in which they demanded the additional dowry. Without specifically mentioning the act done by each individuat, all the family members of in-laws should not be roped-in basing on the omnibus allegations. [n view ol the same, as neither the complaint nor the statements of witnesses recorded by the Police does not contain specific allegations against the petitioners herein, this Court is of the considered view that they cannot be prosecuted merely because they are the family members of A. I .

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, both these criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No. 1002 of 2017 on the

JS, I

i I

Crl.P.Nos.7 28 7 &3221 of 2079

¶50

file of IX Metropolitan Magistratc, Kukatpally at Miyapur, are hereby

¶51

quashed.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/.MOHD.I^MAIL ASSISTANT REGI^TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The lX Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Kukatpallyat Miyapur'}

¶58

2 The XV Additional^{Distiict Judge-cum-xvl Metropolitansessions Judge-} cum-ll Additional^{FamilyCourt, R R.Districtat Kukatpally}

¶59

3 TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad[OUT]

¶60

The Station Houie^{officer,Miyapurpolice Station, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶61

One CC to^{Smt. G. Jhansi' Advocate} [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri K.^{lsmail,Advocate} [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies plp

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910712024

I
Ttl E STA} €
(
e
coJ 12 JU. m vza
*
Jr O€SPAl CHeO.

¶68

COMMON ORDER

¶69

CRLP.Nos.1281 and 3221of 2019

¶70

ALLOWING THE CRL.P'S

¶71

cryr"

¶72

rzF Y-+

Vemu Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemu Muralidhar 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

Mohamed Zafarullah@ Zafar Vs The State of Telangana

Sodgam Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gopadi Madhava Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Vemu Krishnamurthy Vs The State of Telangana

Karra Srinivas Reddy @ Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dnyanoba Dilip Gore Vs The State of Telangana