Partly allowed

Shrikant Oza v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC12 Aug 2024CRLP/948/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of identical petitions seeking to quash matrimonial complaints under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 & 6 DP Act. The court held that since no specific allegations were made against accused Nos. 4 to 6, their proceedings were quashed, while the husband's case was remanded to the trial court for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against Accused Nos. 4 to 6 in C.C. No. 11614 of 2019 were quashed; proceedings against Accused No. 1 are remanded for trial.

Shrikant Oza Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO^N NOs:^{770'r oF 2019 AND 948 0F 2020}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 7701 OF 2019}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yogita, (A4) S/o^{Vijaya KumarOza, Age. 39 years, R:/o.Ubale Nagar,} Maharastra,

¶10

Swetha Nagla,^{(A5)W/o Laxmi Kanth Nagla, Aged 36 years, Occ' Professor,} R/o.1/238, Ram^{lvlandirWard, Maharastra}

¶11

Megha Pande,^{(46) Wo. Bhushan Pande Aged about 32 yearsOcc'House} wife Rl/o- Ubale Nagar^Nilaharastra

¶12

... PETITIONER/ACCUSEDS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of^{Telangana.Rep by its Pub{icProsecutorHighCourt Buildings'} Hyderabad

¶15

Smt- Tejeswari Vyas^{Oza, W/o ShrikantOza.Agedabout25 years,HinduRl/o} H.No. 2i-3-688, Chelapura,^{Srkhwal Sadan, Charminar,Hyd.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLANANT

¶17

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P-Cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the lti'lemorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedingsin CC No.11614of 20'19on the file of the} XV Addl Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate at Hyderabadagainst the petitioners/ A4} to 46.

¶18

l.A NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Sectron^{482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumgances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may} be pleased to stay all^{further proceedingsincludingthe arrest of the} petitioners/A4 to 46 in CC No 11614 of 2019^{on the file of the XV AddlChief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{pending disposalof the Quash Petition.}

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr,p.C praying that in ]e circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Crimin;l ietition, the High.Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 2g_11_2019 passed in IA No. I of 20'19 in CRLP No. 7701 of 2019 until further orders in the interest of justice.

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF il 021

¶23

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,,temorandum of Grounds of Criminal Fetition,the H,gh Couri may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 2B-11-zo1g passed in rA No, 1 of 2019 in CRLP No. '1701 of 2019 until further orders in the interest of justice.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2'.023

¶25

Petition under Section 492 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the ft4emorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition,the High court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 2Bn1l2}1g passed in lA No. I of 2019 in CRLP \o. 7201 of'2019 until further orders in the iniercst of justrce

¶26

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2 02s

¶27

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the lV emorandum of Grounds of Criminil Fetition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 28_11 ZOlg passed in lA.No 1 of 2019 in Crl P.No.77O1 of 2019 until further orders in the interest ()f tustice.

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:948 oF 2020

¶29

Between

¶30

Shnkanl O7e, (Al ) S/o Viiava Kumar Oza, Age. 29 years Oc,. pnvJf , , Fnrployee, R/o Aura Cc unty, pune, ir,liharastra

¶31

.. PETITIONERYA1

¶32

AND

¶33

1 I?:"::1:r"t relangana, Rep' bv its Public Prosecutor Hish courr Buirdinss,

¶34

2 Sml Teje;wari Vyas Oza, w/o Shrikant Oza. Aged about 25 years Hrndu R/o H. No 2 I - l-688, Chetapuia, Sittrwjr SaO -an' Ch=; ;;'Fiy;

¶35

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶36

Petition Lnder Section- 4g2 of Cr.p_C praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the M€rmorandum of Grounds of Criminal d"tition, the tJigh Court may of rhe xv"Addl P.:.^p]gr.:._O Chief^{to q,rash} I\retroporitan^{the proceedings} Magistriteⁱⁿ at^CC uyJeraoao^{No1 16 i} 4 ajarnst ot 20.1 O the on peritioners/ rh., 'te A4 to 46.

¶37

t.A. NO: 't OF²⁰²⁰

¶38

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P'C praying that in the circumstances} stated inj the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminatPetition, the Highcourt may} be oleasLd to stay all^{further proceedings against including the appearance of} tn"^{'puiiqionur"tAl} in^{CC No 1 1614 of 2019 on the fite of XV Addl Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the QuashPetition.}

¶39

I tft.a"^{Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusingthe} tyl"-.rratdum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the arguments of} trls. Rnjalti I Agarwal,^{Advocatefor the Petitionersin both Criminal Petitions and} the Assiltant^{public prosecutoron behalf of the RespondentNo.1 in both} criminal i e.tition. and of^{Mr_ vempatilvlallikarjunSastry,Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2^{in both Criminal Petitions}

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 77O¹ OF 2019^{AND 948 of} 2020

¶42

COMMON ORDER:

¶43

Criminal Petition No.948 of 2O2O is fited^{seeking to quash} the proceedings against the^petitioner/ accused^No '¹ⁱⁿ C.C.No.11614 of 2Ol9 on the file of the^{learned XV Additional} Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad^{(for short, "the trial} Court") for the offences under Sections 498-A and^{506 of Indian} Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") and Sections 4^arrd 6^{of the Dowry} Prohibition Act (for short, "the DP Act").

¶44

Criminal Petition No.77O1 of 2Ol9 is filed^{seekingto quash} the proceedings against the^petitioners/ accused^{Nos.4 to 6 in} C.C.No. 11614 of 2Ol9 on the file of the the trial^{Court for the} offences under Sections 498-A arld 506 of I.P.C. and^Sections4 and 6 of the DP Act.

¶45

Since, the issue involved in both these Criminal^{Petitions is} one and the same, they are being disposed of^{by way of common} order

¶46

Heard Ms.Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel^{for the petitioners} appearing on-1ine, Ms.S.Madhavi, learned^{AssistantPublic}

¶47

¶48

Prosecutor app,earing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Vempati Mallikarjun Sastry, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Criminal Petition No.77O1 of2019 are discussed as hereunder:-

¶50

The brief facts ol the case are that the marriage between respondent No.2 I de facto complainant and her husband/accused No.l was perfcrmed on 24.lL2Ol6 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Accur;ed Nos.2 to 6 are the relatives of accused No. l. Respondent No 2 stated that at the time of marriage, her parents presented 30 trrlas of gold jewellery apart from the gold jewellery given to accusr)d No. 1. It is stated that the expenses incurred during her mz rriage were around Rs. 12,O0,00O/- apart from other expenses rvhich came to Rs.9,O0,OOO/-. Respondent No.2 further stated that after marriage, her husband and relatives of her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowr,,,. They took away her educational certificates and jewellery and rrever permitted her to use them. Her husband neglected her tLnd never co-habited with her. Unable to bear such harassmerrt, she filed the complaint against her husband and relatives of her husband which was registered as F.l.R.No.56 of 2Ol9 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

¶51

¶52

5O6 of I.P.C. and Sections^{4 and 6 of the DP Act' The police upon} investigation hled^{charge sheet as C'C'No'11614of 20 19 before} the trial Court. The^{presentCriminalPetition is filed seeking to} quash the impugned Proceedings.

¶53

Learned counsel for^{the petitioners, relying on the decision} passed by the Hon'ble^{Apex Court in Freethi Gupta and another} Vs. State of Jharkhand^{and anotherr,submittedthat genuine} cases of dowry harassment^{are matters of serious concern but} exaggerated version^{of small incidents should not be reflectedin} the complaint and^{implicatingthe accused basingon lalse} allegations amounts^{to abuse of processof law' Therefore'she} seeks to^quash the^{impugned proceedings'}

¶54

Learned counsel for^{respondentNo'2 submittedthat the} police, upon thorough investigation,^{registeredthe subject F'l'R'} against the petitioners^{for thealleged offencesandthe} interference of this^{Court, at thisstage, isunwarranted'} Therefore, he seeks^{to dismiss ttre CriminalPetition'}

¶55

7 . A perusal of the record^{shows that this Court videorder} dated 28.1 1.2O19^{grantedinterimstay of all further proceedings} against petitioners/^{accused No.4 to 6 in C'C'No ' 11614of 2Ol9}

¶56

I 20r0 (7) scc Page 667

¶57

¶58

before the tria Court for a period of 05.O2.2020. Later the interim order was extr:nded from time to time. But no interim stay was granted with rr:gard to accused No. 1.

¶59

In vieu' of the facts and circumstances af the case, considering th e submissions of both the learned counsel and relying upon the decisions passed by the Hon,i:le Supreme Court in (supra 7,i, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lalz, Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and another3, Kahkashan K:rusar (a) Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Othersa, t-ris Court is of the opinion that the contents of the F.I.R. reveal t.tat general allegations are levelled against the petitioners/acc rsed Nos.4 to 6 and no specific a,d distinct allegations are made against them. In the absence of any specific role attributecl to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 herein it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial.

¶60

Inasfar as accused No. 1/husband of respondent No.2 1S concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires

¶61

2CivilAppcal No.54 l2ot I990daled 2t.lt.lgg} '{2O12) lO Supremr ('orrrl Cases 741

¶62

a 2022 Lalvsuit (SC) 149

¶63

¶64

adjudication^{at Iengthand only upon condr'rcting a full-fledged} trial, the^{truth would cometo light'}

¶65

Therefore,^{this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal} PetitionNo.TTolof2olgbyquashingtheproceedingsinitiated against the^{petitioners/accusedNo'4 to 6 in C'C'No'11614of} 2019 on^{the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan} Magistrate^{at HYderabad'}

¶66

Accordingly,^{CriminalPetition No'7701 of 2Ol9 is allowed;} Criminal^{Petition No 948 of 2O2Ois dismissed'}

¶67

I I I I I I I

¶68

Miscellaneous^{Petitions, pendingif any, shall stand closed.} scl/- A'v's'^PRASAo I ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶69

//TRUE^COPY'/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

1 2 +l:ly.fl1lu:lit3*{:[i1.ili$,3JilIff^{',,I,,";$3i;;ffif:l"o'o} 3 Two^{CCs to Public Prosecutc} Hvderabad-^(OUT) 4. :'":1H; i/U^{Aniali Asarwa'Advocate toPu'c]} ffi::il 'n;; v;;;'tir"r"iriri"'i'" sasirv' Advocate^roPUcl tl' Two CD^CoPies

DUgh

i
I
L
I

I 1

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812024