Dismissed

Smt. Suryadevara Usha Rani and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024CRLP/5900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Act offences. Court held allegations against separately residing petitioner were vague, and proceedings against deceased accused abated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.366 of 2019 are quashed. Proceedings against deceased accused No.3 are abated.

Smt. Suryadevara Usha Rani and another Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERBAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5900 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Suryadevara Usha Rani , Wo Prasada Rao, Hindu,^{a/a 62 years,Occ.} House wife

¶10

Sri. Suryadevara Prasad Rao, S/o Sangaiah,^{Hindu,a/a 73 years,_Occ.Both} R/o H.No.15-1 -24511911 , Tilaknagar, Ramagundam^{Mandal,Peddapally} District, Telangana State-505209.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 &³

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana , Rep. By Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State} of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt. S. Sujatha, Wo Harinath Kumar,^{Hindu, aged about 38 years,-Occ-.} . House Wif6. R/o H.No.1-10, Dullapally,^{Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal,} Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana^{State-S0700'1.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶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 Courtmay} be pleased to QUASH the^{proceedings againstthe Petitioners/AccusedNo.2 and} 3 in C.C.No.366/2019 on the file of XXll^{Metropolitan Magistrate,at Medchal,} Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State,^{in the interest of} iustice.

¶17

l.A. NO:2OF2022

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in th€ Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High courtmay-} be pleased to^grant sTAY of all^{furtherproceedingsincluding appearanceof the} petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in C.C.No.366/2019 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District, Telangana State, pehUing} disposal of the Criminal Petition,^{in the interest of justice.}

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Me:morandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri P Venkanna,} Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla^{AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor, state of Telangana on behalf of the^{Respondent No.1and None} Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER:-

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICEK. SUJANA} CRIMIN AL^{PETITIONNO. 59OOof2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal^{Petition is frled under Sectiot 482 of} Code of^{Civil Procedure(for short 'Cr'P'C) by the} petitioners/accused^{Nos'2 and 3' toquashthe} proceedings against^{them in C'C'No'366 of 2Ol9 on the} file of XXII^{Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchal' Cyberabad} for the^{offences punishable under Sections498-A of IPC'} Sections^{3 and 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct'}

¶24

The brief^{facts of the case are that the marriage of} respondent^{No.2l de-factocomplainantwas performed} with Mr.^{S.HarinathKumar/accusedNo' 1on} 28.L1.2OO4.^{After marriage, respondentNo'2 joined the} conjugal^{societ5r with the accused No'l and out of their} wedlock^{they were blessed with two children' It is further} stated that^{her in-lawssufferedhuge loss inthe} business,^{as suchthey demandedRs'5'00'000/- towards} additional^{dowry. In the year 2007' respondent No'2 I de-} facto^{complainant shifted from Godavarikhani to}

¶25

¶26

sr(s,J Crl.P.No.59OO of 2022

¶27

Jeedimetla along with their children and even there also her husband/accused No.1 harassed her mentally and physically bv beating her and her children and that his relatives also threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on u,hich, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint and the sarne is registered as a case in Crime No.790 of 2018 of Petbasheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and accused No. 1, uide C.C.No.366 of 2Ol9 before XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of IpC, Sections 3; and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the the present Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them.

¶28

Heard Sri P. Venkanna, lea=rned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1_State

¶29

.-'. 1., ',.] ii Jir'. .^l. ..,. -.;:^: i+ -:-l .:, i:.'.

¶30

-1, " '- 'it" + ::*; ' '." 1f ;.

¶31

¶32

sKs,J Crl.P.No.59OO^oJ 2022

¶33

Though notice^{was servedon respondent No'2' none} appeared on her^behalf.

¶34

Learned counsel^{for the petitionercontendedthat} accused No.l,^{who is the son of the petitioners died on} 2l.ll.2O2l. He^{further contended thatpetitioner} No.2/accused^{No.3 died on l3'O2'2O24 and frled a} photostat copy of^{the death certihcate, as such the case} against^{petitionerNo.2/accusedNo'3 isabated'He} further contended^{that petitionerNo' l/accusedNo'2 is} the mother-in-law^{of the de-factocomplainant'who is} aged about 62^{yexs, she is sufferingfrom old aged} ailmentsandsheisinnocentoftheallegedoffences'she is falsely implicated^{inthe case basing on vague'} omnibus and^{bald allegations forthe purposeof} harassing the^{petitioner even thoughshe isliving} separately from^{the accusedNo'1 and respondentNo'2} and the statements^{of LWs'2 to 4reveals that the} petitioner/accused^{No.2 and her relatives never visited} the house of^{accused No.1 and the respondettNo'21 de-} facto^{complainant and never interferedintheir}

¶35

¶36

¶37

s.t(s,J Crl.P.No.59OO of 2022

¶38

matrimonial alfairs. Therefore, he prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against her.

¶39

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 ol the complaint, petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2 and he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶40

Taking into consideration of the submissions made by respective counsel and after perusal of ma1-erial available on record, this Court is of the considered view that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and she is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the accused No.l is no more and the case against petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is abated as he died on t3.o2.2024.

¶41

¶42

sKs,J Cra,P,No,59OO^{of 2022}

¶43

At this stage, it^{is relevant to note the observations} made by^{the Apex Court in State of Harydndand others} tts. BhaJanlati,^{whereunderthe followingcategories were} illustrated,^{wherein the extraordinarypower 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^{preventthe abuse of processof any Court or} otherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice.Thesaidcategories are extracted^{as under:}

¶44

Wtrcre the allegaticins^{made in the Fitst} Information^{Report or the complaint, euenif theg} oi" tok"n at^tteir lace^{ualueandacceptedin lleir} entiretA do^{not pima} facie^{constitute ang offence} o, *oi" out^{a case against the accused'}

¶45

Where the allegations^{in the First} Information^{Reportand other mateials,if ong'} aicomponging^{- the FIR do not disclose o} ""iii"ad "ff.nce,^{iustifuing an inuestigationbg} ,o'ti"i offo"i under^{Sec:tion 156 (1) of the Code} 'iipt i"a.r an order of a Magistrate tuithin the pui"* of Section^{155 (2) of the Code'}

¶46

Where tlre unantrouerted^allegations mod.e in tE^{FIR or complaintand tle euidence} .iiiit"a in^{supportof tie some do not disclose} the commissioi-^{of ang offence and mnke out a} case again^{st tte ocansed.}

¶47

Where, the^{allegations in the FIR do not} i const^{-"i *g"aiale} i fiie a^{cognizable offence offenie, no but constitute inuestigation onlg} -is p.iitia"ag^{a police- ofJicer rttittaut on orderof a}

¶48

11992 supp (1) scc a35

¶49

¶50

¶51

sl(s,J Crl.P.No.59OO of 2022 (

¶52

Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶53

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the basis of u.thich no pntdent person can euer reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the arcused.

¶54

Where ttere is an express legc bar engrafted in ang of the prouisions'of the Code or the concerned Act (under urhich a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the in-stitution and continuonce of tLrc proceedings and/ or uhere there is a speci.fic prouision in the Code or the concemed Act, prouiding effrcacious redress for tlrc gieuance of the aggieued partg.

¶55

Where o ciminal proceeding is manifestly dttended uLith mata fide and/ or uhere the proceeding is maliciously ir*tituted with an ulterior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the acqtsed and tuith a uieut to spite him due to priuate and personal grudge.'

¶56

8. Further, in Preeti Gupta us. Sto:te of Jharkhan&,

¶57

the Apex Court observed that the family members viho are residing away from accused No.l cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the petitioner/ accused No.2l is not residing along with the family of accused No.1, the allegations against her a-re considered to be vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.1 as exr:racted above in the case of Bhajantal (Supra) is relevant to the

¶58

'1zoro1 z scc ooz

¶59

¶60

sxs,J Crl.P.No,59OO of 2022

¶61

present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other specif,rc allegations against the petitioner/accused No.2.

¶62

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.366 of 2019, on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, are hereby quashed.

¶63

Miscellaneous applications, if aly pending, shall

¶64

also stand closed.

¶65

Sd/- MOHD. IS AIL ASSISTANT REGIS RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER