Yanamadala Siddhardha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Surisetti Geetha Sri, W/o, Yanamadala Janakinadh, Aged about. 27 years, Occ.House Wife, Rlo.4-3711, Near Vinayaka Temple, Ramasingavaram, Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh-534450. R/o.H.No.1-8-505/8/A, Prakash Nagar, Nagamma Temple, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 500016. (Address in the complaint)

¶16

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 528 BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.659B of 2024 dated 02.05.2024 on the file Hon'bie XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad against the petitioner/A-4.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 482 ot 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 against petitioner/A-4 in C.C.No.659B of 2024 daled 02.05.2024 on the file Hon'ble XV Additional Chief the Metropolitan Magistrate at NampallyHyderabad, pending disposal of main Case.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri THANDAVA YOGESH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and NONE for the Respondent No. 2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

,r

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAIU\MJI

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10423^{0F 20"l4}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bltaratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('tor short 'the BNSS) seek ng quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.659B of 2024, dated )|2.05.2024 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶27

Heard lVlr.T.Yogesh, learned counsel fcr petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addr:ional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

¶28

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in C C No.659B of 2024 facing accusation under Sections 498-A, '|i:3,^trt06, 4i7 rlw. 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 .

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that Accused lrl,t. 1 and the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant were marriec according to Hindu rites and traditions. At the time of the marriagt:, the parents of the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant allegr:clly provided dowry to Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, consisting of Rs.!10,0C,000 in

¶30

l

¶31

2

¶32

cash, 500 grams of gold ornaments, and 1 kilogram of silver

¶33

ornaments

¶34

Subsequently, Accused No. 1 and his parents allegedly subjected the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant to harassment with the intent of coercing her to bring additional dowry. They are also alleged to have threatened her not to disclose the harassment to her parents, warning that failure to comply would result in her being killed

¶35

On 26.11.2023, the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant allegedly initiated a dispute regarding the gold ornaments and demanded further dowry. On 30.11.2023, the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant, accompanied by her parents, visited her matrimonial home in an attempt to amicably resolve the matter. However, Accused No. 1 and his parents allegedly abused the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant and her parents in vulgar language, following which Accused No. 1 ordered her to leave the house

¶36

On03.12.2023, Accused t,lo. 1^telephoned the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant, informing her of^his sudden travel to the United States,^purportedly to attend^{to his} brother, Accused

( (

3

,;*:=ry

No. 4, who was hospitalized. When the Respondent No 2/defacto complainant requested to accompany him, Accuserl \o. 1 refused and allegedly cancelled her travel tickets. After reaching the United States, Accused No.^'1 is said to have grr:luall1, reduced communication with the defacto complainant. On o:r;asions when she attempted to contact him, Accused No. 4 allegerlly answered the calls, spoke to her in a rude and abusive manr:r, warned her to^'stay within her limits,' threatened her w'ith adverse consequences, and used vulgar language.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends rhat he did not even aftended the marriage of his brother/Accused No.1, and Respondent No.2/defacto complainant. He assert; that he has been residing in the United States since 202() etnd that the immigration stamp on his passport, dated January 2020, remains unchallenged by the respondents. Furthermore, evel as per the allegations made by Respondent No.2/defacto cornolainant, the only act attributed to the petitioner is that he allege,Jly spoke to her in a rude manner. Such an allegation, even if ta <en at its face value, does not constitute the offence of 'cruelty'as Cr=fined under Section 4984 of the lndian Penal Code. Accordingly, the

¶43

4

¶44

I I I I i I i I

¶45

petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶46

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the complainant has specifically alleged an overt act on the part of the petitioner. lt was further submitted that the offence of 'cruelty' under Section 49BA of the lndian Penal Code encompasses not only physical cruelty but also mental cruelty. The merits of the allegations, however, are matters to be adjudicated by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, any interference at this preliminary stage would risk prejudicing and impeding the regular course of the judicial process.

¶47

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record

¶48

Upon a careful examination of the complaint and the statements recorded during the investigation, it appears that the role attributed to the petitioner is confined solely to allegations of having used rude and abusive language, accompanied by threats, during telephonic conversations.

¶49

5

¶50

The specific allegation against the petitionr-.r is that, after Accused No. 1 arrived in the United States, he gradually reduced communication with the defacto_complainant. \Vrenever she attempted to contact him to ascertain his where a ltouts, it was occasionally Accused No.4/the petitioner, who a lswered the calls. On such occasions, he allegedly spoke to her in a rude manner, abused and admonished her to^,stay wit rin her limits,' instructed her not to call his brother, and purporte,lly threatened her with adverse consequences while using vulgar l,tnguage.

¶51

Beyond this solitary reference, no other spec fio, much less overt, act is attributed to the petitioner. The un,:ontroverted assertion that the petitioner never resided with Restrrc,ndent No. 2 also remains on record. Furthermore, the statem --nts of other witnesses examined by the police during the investigation do not disclose any independent allegation against the petitioner. Consequently, the accusations against him appear vague, unsubstantiated, and lacking in material particulars.

¶52

lt is well-settled law, as reaffirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta y. Sfafe of Jharkhand, (2010) 1, SCC 667, that while allegations under Section 4ggA lpC must be addressed

¶53

6

¶54

with seriousness, courts fiust remain vigilant to prevent the mechanical implication of relatives without specific and credible allegations of their active participation in the alleged offence. Similarly, in Geefa Mehrotra v. Stafe of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was held that bald and omnibus allegations, unsupported by material particulars, cannot justify the prosecution of distant relatives. Most recently, in Kahkashan Kausar v. Slafe of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the mere roping in of distant relatives or in-laws-without clear and credible assertions of active involvement in acts amounting to cruelty under Section 498A-constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

¶55

ln Sfafe of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings. However, it also cautioned that where allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence, proceedings should not be scuttled prematurely.

¶56

ln the present case, the alleged verbal abuses and threats are supported solely by the uncorroborated testimony of the de

¶57

7

¶58

.J

¶59

facto complainant, without any independent eviJr:nce. Even if these allegations are assumed to be true in their entirety, they fall short of disclosing a prima facie case of thr_1 psti{i66sp'g involvement so as to satisfy the essential ingredi :rrts of Section 49BA lPC. ln such circumstances, the continuaticn of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount tc an abuse of the process of law.

¶60

Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 6598 of 2024, dated 02.05.2024, pending before tire Court of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrat:, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous applications, if an1,, shall stand

¶62

closed

¶63

SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR

G

{

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l

To,

W

1 The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magiskate at Nan pally, Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer, WPS North police Station, Hyderabad. J One CC to SRI THANDAVA YOGESH Advocate [OPUO]

I

J

I II I I I