Allowed

Smt.Gayathri Devulapalli v. State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLP/1958/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under 498-A IPC against petitioner accused No.4. Relying on Bhajanlal and Preeti Gupta cases, it held allegations are vague as petitioner resides separately and never interfered in matrimonial affairs.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.14451 of 2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Smt.Gayathri Devulapalli Vs State of Telangana And Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1958 OF 2O2O

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.Gayathri- De.vulapalli, (Smt. Ratna Gayathri Devulapalli), Wo Vasu Devulapalli, Aged about 26 Years, Occ.^priv-ate Service, Ryo ibtZS, Ctevet qn!_St, Ap! 615, Redmond, WA 98052 rep.by her father and GpA hotder Sri Garimella Srinivas, S/o G.Kameshwar Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Retired, . R/o H.No.SFS, Sri Sadasiva Residency, Murali Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna Diatrict - S2OOO|.

¶10

AND

¶11

...Petitioner/ Accused no.4

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, HiTh Court Buildings, Hyderabad. RespondenU Respondent

¶13

Smt.G.N.V.S.S.Sarvani,-G _Suryakanlh Sharma (G. S .N. V.V. Suryakanth 9rryn"),^{Occ. House Wife, R/o H.No.604E, Site} -ll,^{NRR puram, dorabanda,} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenU Defacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of GrouMs of criminal petition, the High court may be pbased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.144s1t2o19 on the file of the xlll Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner is concerned-

¶16

l,A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶17

Petition uhder section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the MemoraMum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to direct the 1St Respondent not to call or arrest the petitioner herein including stay of all further proceedings in c.c.No .144s1lzo1g on the file of the Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition No. of 2020.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Aditya Advocate for the Petitioner and the M/s. S,Madhavi, Addl. public prosecutor for the state of relangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s. yases Mamoon, Advocate for un-official Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER:-

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 95a of2O2O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) by the petitioner/accused No.4, to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.14451 of 2Ol9 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 406 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant was performed with Mr. G. Suryakanth Sharma/accused No.1 on 22.L2.2O13. After marriage, respondent No.2 joined the conjugal society with the accused No. 1 . It is further stated that her in-laws along with accused No. 1 used to haraSs her in the name of giving less dowry and harassed by demanding additional dowry. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein also harassed the

¶24

¶25

EW'J Crl.P.No.7958 oJ 2O2O

¶26

respondent No.2/ de-facto^{complainant in the name of} presenting less dowry by her parents.^{It is further} submitted that the in-laws^{and petitioner hereinalong} with her husband harassed her^{both physicaliyand} mentally. Basing on which,^{respondentNo'2 lodged a} complaint and the same is^{registeredas a case in Crime} No.11 of 2Q19 of W.P.S. D.D.Hyderabad^{Police Station.} After completion of investigation,^{the police filed charge} sheet against the^{petitioners and accused No -1-, uide} C.C.No. 14451 of 2Ol9 on the file^of XIII^{Additional Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil^{Courts, Nampally,} Hyderabad for the offences punishable^{under Sections} 498-A, 406 of IPC read with Sections 4 and^{6 of Dowry} Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same,^{the present} Criminal Petition is liled by the^{petitioner/accuse<lNo.4,} seeking to quash the proceedings^{against them'}

¶27

Heard Sri Aditya, learned Counsel^representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri^{M/ sYases} Mamoon, learned counsel for un-official respondent^and

¶28

¶29

EW,J Crl.P,No.7958 of 2O2O

¶30

¶31

Sri S. Madhavi, learned Additional^{PublicProsecutor for} respondent No. 1 -State.

¶32

karned counsel for the^{petitionercontendedthat} the marriage of the petitioner^was held on^16.03.2015at Sindhu Kalyana Mandapam,^{Vijaywada withSri} Devulapalli Vasu who was working as^{Software Engineer} in Bangalore Center and soon after the^marriageshe joined her husband at Bangalore i.e., prior to the marriage of accused No.¹ with the^{de-facto complainant.} Later on her brother's marriage^{took place on 22.L2.2OL6} at Hyderabad to which^{petitioneralong with her husband} attended and returned to Banglore.^{Later she cameto} know that her brother and 2"d respondent^{put up their} family in the same house where her brother^{did reside} earlier. The petitioner never know^{about the alleged} events stated by 2"d resPondent either^{in complaint or in} the charge sheet. He further^{contendedthat} petitioner/accused No.4 is the sister of the^de-facto complainant, who is residing away^{from the accused} No.l familv and they b-- never lived under one roof at any

¶33

¶34

EWJ Crl.P.No.1958 of 2O2O

¶35

point of time either prior to their marriage or after the marriage. He further vehemently contended that she is innocent of the alleged offences, she is falsely implicated in the case basing on vague, omnibus and bald allegations for the purpose of harassing the petitioner even though she is living separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and never interfered in their matrimonial affairs. Therefore, he prayed to a_llow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against her.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. l-State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the averments of the complaint, petitioner/accused No.4 along with accused No.l used to harass respondent No.2 and he prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition.

¶37

At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and

¶38

¶39

¶40

EW,J Crl.P.No.7958 oJ 2O2O

¶41

others us. Bhajanlalt, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinar5r power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:

¶42

. -"1. .lilEr.^{the allegations made in the First} tnJormaton Report or the complaint, euen il theg are .taken_at their face ualue aid accepted ii tneir entiretg do not pima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the occased..

¶43

Where tLe allegations in the First Information Report and oiner mateAab, iy aig, accompanging the F.IR do not disctose^"a *qlir"b! o[fence, justifying an inuestigation by police offtcers under Section 156 (t) oflhe Co;e excepl under an order of a Magistrate wilhin the puruieut of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶44

Wtere the uncontrouerted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and. the "luid.nu collected in support of the same d.o not disclose the commisston of any offence and. make out a case ag@inst the accused-

¶45

. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constfiute a cog-nizable offence but constitute onlg a no.n-agnizable offence, no inuestigation i ryrryittea^{bg a police olficer uithout an 6rderof a} \gAtr1t9^{as contemptated.under Section I SS' (i1} of the Code.

¶46

Where the altegations made in tlrc FIR or mmplaint are so absurd. and. inherentlg

¶47

11992 supp (U SCC 335

¶48

¶49

¶50

EW,J Crl.P.No.7958 of 2O2O

¶51

improbable on the basi.s of tDhich no prudent person can euer reach a just conclusion that there is sufftcient ground for proceeding against the, occused.

¶52

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in ang of the proubion"s of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminol proceeding i-s in-stituted) to the institution and continuance of the procbedings and/ or u.ther<z there is a specific proui.sion in the Code or th<: concerned Act, prouiding effcacious redress fo;. the gieuance of the aggrieued partg.

¶53

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestlg attended with mala fide ond/ or wherc) the proceeding is maliciouslg in stituted uith an ulteior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the accused ond uLith a uiew to spite him due to priuate and personal grudge."

¶54

Further, in Preeti Gupta as. Str::te of Jharkhan&, the Apex Court observed that the family members who are - residing away from^accused No.l cannot be^roped into^the case. In view thereof, as the petitioner/accused No.4 is not residing along with the family of accused No.l, the allegations against her are considered to be vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.l as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would

¶55

'^{(zor.o) z scc oo7}

¶56

¶57

EW,J Crl.P.No.7958 oJ 2o2O

¶58

¶59

be served as there are no other specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4.

¶60

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.l445l of 2Ol9 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences punishabile under Sections 498A 406 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.

¶61

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶62

also stand closed.

¶63

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTAN)FGISTRAR

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

SECTION OFFICER

¶66

To,