Allowed

G Nithun Reddy and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC4 Oct 2024CRLP/2843/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed by a petitioner who is a US resident, seeking quashing of proceedings. The court found no evidence that the marriage was performed or that dowry was given, holding that Section 406 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act did not attract in such circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.78 of 2022 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed.

G Nithun Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^338s l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2843 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

G Nithun Reddy and 2 others, S/o. G Shekar^{Reddy, agedabout3'l years'} Occ. Software Engineer, Presently residing at^{1997, Harrison St. Neenah, Wl,} USA, Rep. by his GPA holder Sri.^{G. Shekar ReddyR/o.H.No.2-2'12911,} Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad

¶9

Smt. G. Lakshmi alias Savithri, Wo.^{G. Shekar Reddy, Aged about 48 years,} Occ. House wife, Rio. H.No.2-2-12911,^{Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad}

¶10

Sri. G. Shekar Reddy, S/o. G. Mohan^{Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ.} Business, R/o. H.No.2-2-1 291^1, Viiayapuri Colony,^{Uppal, Hyderabad.}

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1 to³

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . The State of Telangana and another, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Premises,^Hyderabad-

¶14

Smt. Kasula Mounika, D/o. K. Madhusudhan^{Reddy,Aged about 24 years,} Occ . Private Service, R/o. H. No.8-3-2281304,^{Rehmath nagar, Yousufguda,} HYderabad

¶15

...RESPoNDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 437143814391482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the} High Court may be^{pleasedto quash the proceedings in C.C.No.78of 2022on} th; fib of the Xlll Additional^{Chieftv!etropolitan lvlagistrateat Nampally,} Hyderabad (Cr.l.lo.322 ot 2021 of^{WPS, D.D, Hyderabad)in the interestof} J ustice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Ct.P^{.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to stay of all the further^{proceedings including appearance of the} Petitioners in C.C.No.78 of 2A22 on the^{file of the Xlll AdditionalChief} t\lbtropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,^{pending disposalof 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 Sri C. RUTHWIK REDDY,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun kumar the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2843 of 2O23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crimina,l Petition is hled under Section 482 of^Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to^{quash the} proceedings against the petiLioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3ⁱⁿ C.C.No.78 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII^Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,^Hyderabad, registered for the offences^punishable under^{Section 406 of} the Indian Penal Code, 1860^(for short^{'IPCJ and Section3 of} the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961^(for short^{'DP Act').}

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that respondent^No.2 /^de facto^{complainantlodged a complaint beforethe Police against} the petitioners stating that her marriage^proposalwith petitioner No.l came through her elders and^{the samewas} conhrmed. As per the demand^{of the petitioners,her parents} agreed to give Ac.3.2O^guntas of^{agricultureland and 5O} Thulas of Gold as dowry. On^{O7.O2.2O2 1, Tamboolas} ceremony was arranged at^{her parents' house and datesfor} engagement and marriage^{were hxed. Thereafter, petitioner} No.1 called respondent No.2 and told that^{there isvisa} problem and the same was informed to her parents. It^is

¶26

¶27

¶28

SKS,J CrLP.No.2843 ol2023

¶29

further stated that when her parents wan t to talk u,ith the petitioners, they refused to talk. Later, the parents of respondenL No.2 went to the house of the petitioners and discussed about the matter; during which the peti[ioners demanded more agricultural land as dowry and her parents also agreed for the same. Later, the petitioners told the family membe rs of respondent No.2 that another marriage alliance approached them and therefore, they are cancetling the present rnarriage. Basing on the said complaint, tl're Police registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2027 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sht:et, vide C.C.No.7S of 2022, before the learned XIII Additior:al Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶30

Hezrrd Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State. Though notice servec. upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

¶31

lrarnecl counsel for the petitioners submitted r.hat the petitioners are innocent ald the allegations alleged against

¶32

¶33

S.KS,J crLP.No.2a43 ol2023

¶34

them are vague and^{baseless.He further submitted that the} petitioners have not agreed for^{the marriage proposal and no} such tamboolas ceremony^{was arranged as alleged in the FIR} or in the charge sheet.^{He further contended that when the} marriage proposal^{was not finalizedby the petitioners,the} question of fixing date of^{Nichithardamdoes not ariseHe} further submitted that^{petitionerNo. 1 did not visit Indiain} recent past due to^{visa problem, as such, he isno way} concerned with the^{alleged offences. Even ifthe entire} allegations are taken^{intoto, the offences as allegedby} respondent No.2, do^{not constitute, hence,the proceedings} against the^{petitioners are liableto be quashed'}

¶35

On the other^{hand,learned Additional Public Prosecutor} submitted that^{are allegationsagainst the petitionersare that} they received^{agricultural land and 3 thulas of gold and also} demanded^{additionaldowry. He further submittedthat the} case is at the^{stage of trial and there are allegations against} the petitioners,^{therefore, quashing of proceedingsat this} stage, does not^{ariseand prayed the Court to dismiss the} criminai Petition.

¶36

r.'@ \ '.

¶37

¶38

SKS,J CrLP.No.2a43 of 2023

¶39

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counscl and a perusal of the material ava.ilable on record, it appears that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 4O6 of IpC and Sections 3 of Dp Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the marriage proposal was not finalized, the question of hxing the date of Nichitharctam does not arise. Responden[ No.2 opposed the same and contended that during the course of marriage talks, her parents presented 3 thulas of gold chain to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. On going through the said contentions, the alieged offence against the petitioners is under Section 3 of the Dp Act. VYhen the marriage between petitioner No. I and respondent No.2 u,as not performed, the question of demanding dowry or aclditional dowry does not arise.

¶40

That apart, the other allegation leveled against the petitioners is under Section 406 of IpC To attract Section 406 of IPC, there must be entrustment of property or with any domrnion over property, dishonestly misapproprizrtes or converts Lo his own use that property, or dishonestiy uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law

¶41

¶42

sr(s'J crLP.No.2a43^{oJ 2O23}

¶43

¶44

I I

¶45

prescribing the^{mode in whichsuch trust is to be discharged'} or of any^{legal contract, express or implied,which he has} made touching^{the dischargeof such trust, or wilfullysuffers} any other^{personso to do, commits "criminalbreach of trust"'} In the^{present case, except the allegation that the parentsof} respondent^{No.2 gave 2 to 3 tulas of gold to petitioner Nos'2} and 3, there^{is no otherspecific allegation' Therefore' Section} 4O6 of IPC does^{not attract to the presentcase'}

¶46

In view of^{the facts and circumstancesof the case and} on perusal^{of the record, it appears that there is no mention} about^{performance of engagementor Nichithardham and there} is no evidence^{on recordto show that earlier the parents of} respondent^{No.2 gave agricultural land to the parents of} petitioner^{No.1 . According to petitioner No' 1, he never visited} India in recent^{years.Further,the averments inthe} complaint^{show that pre-engagementwas performedin the} presence of^{familymembers of both sides and not between} petltloner No.l and^{respondent No.2. When there is no} evidence to^{prove the said incidents, there is no case to} proceed further^{against the petitioners'Therefore' this Court} does not hnd^{any groundin the complaint to proceed further'}

¶47

¶48

sr(s,J CrLP.No.2a4s ol2023

¶49

-T:@ \ \

¶50

as such, the allegations^{leveled againstthe petitionersare} liable to be quashed.

¶51

In the result, the criminal^petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.78 of 2022 on the Iile of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶52

Magistrate, Nampally,^Hyderabad, are hereby^quashe<l.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶54

stand closed.

¶55

Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

1 The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad

¶60

The Station House Officer,Woman Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad CitY

¶61

One CC to SRI C. RUTHWIK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HyderabadIOUT].

¶63

Two CD Copies.

AR/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:O411012O24

ORDER

CRLP.No.2843 ot 2023

. i .r i
/.
.-,.<br>:. ,i
! --n,'d 0 l'lT ,fi{ 5):i
a !,i
--:l

¶70

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

G Nithun Reddy and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Nithun Reddy and 2 others v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State ofTelangana

Salman Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Yousuf Vs Fatima Badrul Batul

Rondla Deepi Chandan @ Rondla Deepu Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Nagarakunta Naveen Reddy Vs State of Telangana