Jitta Keerthi, Vs State of Telangana

Mekala Naga Sravya, Wo. Dr. Mekala Karthik Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Employee , R1o.232, Road No.10, Housing Board Colony, Khammam, Khammam Diskict.

¶14

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.273 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court at Khammam.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.273 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court at Khammam including appearance of the Petitioner/A3 pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Peri Prabhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVASRAO}

¶21

CRIMINAL PETI^{TION No.1438 of 2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Clrirninal Petition^{has been filed by the petitioner/acr:r-tsed} No. 3 seeking^{Io quash the proceedingsin C'C'No273 of 2021 on lhc} lile ol le:rrnt:d Judicial^{Magistrateof First class-curn-SpecialNlobile} court at Khatnmam,^{registeredfor lhe offences llunishablerrnder} Sections 498;<sup>ancl 506 of Indian PenalCode, 1860 (ln short'lPC') ancl Sectiorts 3 and^{4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 (ln short} 'l).1).Act'1.

¶24

) . W hcn he matler was^{taken up forl:onsiderat io -tor-r} ,23.09.20i25, there^{was no representation on behalf of respondcnt} No.2. To gi|e one^{more opportunity,the mattcr u'as postcdto} 2r.Og.2O)5. On 25.09.2025^{also, therewas no rcpresentati'rn on} bt:l'ralf of the respondent^{No.2, either in physical mode or virtual} mocle. To^give one^{more opportunity,the matter rr"'as pos'-ed lo} 08.l0-2025 u rder^{the caption"for orders".Evcn today also, tltcreis} no rcpresent:rLion on behalf^{of the respondentNo 2 inmorning} session or:rflernoon^{session, eitherph1'sical11'or virtuallyllencc'} r Lris cotrrt s lrol having^{any optionexccpt to proceedwith the lnatter} o|L merlts

¶25

tlcarrl \4r.Pcri Prabhakar, learned counsel [or the pet.Lioner appcared thr:rugh video conference, and Mr.M.Vivekanand^Iledrly,

F--r

\

)

Iearned Assistant^{GovernmentPlcader appearedonbehalf of} respondent No. I^State

¶30

4.Learnedcounselforthepetitiorrersubmittcdthat.thepc|itioncr has not commit[ed^{any offence and shc was falscly implicatedin the} present case only on^{the groundthat the petitioneris the sister of} accused No. 1.^{RespondentNo 2has made omnibusallcgations} against the petitioner^{that she issupporting accuscdNo lin} demanding additional^{dowry. 'l'he cntirc allegattot-tsarc lcveLlcd} against the accused^{No. 1 onlY.}

¶31

5.Hefurthersubmittedthatthepetitionerislivingscparatcly and she never^{harassed the respondentNo 2 lor aclditionaldou'ry'} Hence, the ingredients^{of Sections 498-A and 5O6 ol the IPC and} Scctions3and4ofD.P.ActdonolatLraCLagalnstthcpetitioner. The Investigating^{Ofhcer, withoutproperly conductit-rgthc} sheet for the^{aforesaid oll-ences} investigation, filed^the charge of the proccedings^{agait'r st thc pctltioner} Hence, the continuation would amounts^{to a clear abuse of thc processof lau'}

¶32

Per contra,learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutorsubmitted that} respondent No.2^{had made specific allegations againsLthe pe titiotlcr'} Hence, the provisions^{of Sections498-A and 506 of the IPC ar-rd} Sections 3 and 4 of^{the D.P. Act are attracted agairlstthe pctiLioner'}

¶33

-)

¶34

1'he pctitioncr^{is not entitled to seek quashingof thc proceedi:rgs and} lhr: crimltral ptrtition^{is liableto be dismissed'}

¶35

Har,ing^,:onsidering rival^{submissions madelly the respective} pirrtics :rnd ltpon^{perusal of lhe material availablc on record itis} r<:r,ealecl i.hitt |cspondent^{No.2 marriagewas perfornledu'ith ac:uscd} No. 1 on 29.C+.2076.^{Subsequentiy,matrimonial disputesarose} bctsccn thr:nt. According^{to the learned counsellor the petitioner,} rcsponrlcrtL f,lo.2 left^{lhcmarital home ofar:cusedNo. 1on} l8.O+.2020 artd since^{then, both are living separalely'}

¶36

From [h e perusal of the^{complalnt and the charge sheet, there} ai-c: omniblrs allcgations^{are levelled againstthe petitioner'The only} urllegation rna(1e against^{the petitioner is that she supportedaccused} No. I in dcnranding additional^dowry.

¶37

(r. It is 1;crtinent^{to rnention that the 1au' governingthe} t:xercise of inherent^{powersunder Section 482Cr 'P 'C 'or} thc ext.ra()rcL; n:ery^{writ jurisdiction under Article 226 i:: well} settled br' ll-rc decision in^{Stcte of Haryana a. Bhoian Lall,} s,hercin thr: Hon'bie Apex^{Court illustrativelycatalrgued} r:ategories of cases warranting^{quashment.such as when} thc allcgations taken^{atface value do not constitlrtcan} offcrrcc- :Lrc absurd or inherenLly^{irnprobable,are actuated}

¶38

I⁽⁾⁹¹ SrLtrt) 'i) SC:Cl .:CS

¶39

/

¶40

4

¶41

by maia hdes, or where continuance of^{proceedings would} arnount to abuse of process, while cat tioning thtrt^{s ucl-r} power rnust be sparingly invoked to s<:cr-lre^. the cnds of' justrce.

¶42

It is also relevant to mention that in Geddarn^Jhansi w. State of Telangan a2, tYte Hon'ble Apex Court^reiterated thc principles that were invokcd to^{quashcriminal} proceedings under Sections 49a-A, 506; IPC, Sections 3^and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 I , and the^{Dr.rrncst i<:} Violence Act, 2OO5, in so far as tiaey^{reiated 1o the} husbarnd's aunt and cousin, as the allcgations^{zrgainst Lhern} were found to be omnibus and gencral,^{berelt oIspecific:} overt actS, resting merely on Ltearsay evidence,^aldfurthe:r weakened by the fact that they resided^{scparatclylrolrt Lht:} matrirnonial horne. The Cotlrt^{held thatdraggingsuch} distant relatives into crirninal^{prosecution,in the absence of} clear particulars of harassrnent^{or dowryderr-rand, scluarcJ.-v} attracted tkre Bhajan LaI^{principles, and pcrmittingthc} proceedings to continue would be^{nothingbutan trt; use of'} the process of law, though^{the trialagainst t he principal} accr-rsecl the husband and rnother^{in-lau'' was :rllor'r'cd to} proceed in accordance with^law.

¶43

:r 2025 SCC C)nLine SC 263

¶44

\ \

¶45

)

¶46

I L lrr tlre liqht of thc principles lard down by the Hon'bl,: Apex (lorrrl in thc c:rsc of Geddam Jhansi supra and also in the r:ase of Ch. Bhajan I.al, supra, this court is of the considered opinic n that conLinuance ol proceedings againsl the petitioners for the oTenccs unrler SecLiorrs 498 A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act s,orrlcL zrmount to abuse of process of law.

¶47

For rht: albresaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion tltL,. tL is a lit r:ersc to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash l.he proct:cdinqs iiqzunst the pcti lioner/ accused No.3.

¶48

In thc rtsult, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proce:dings against thr prrtiLioncr/accused No.3 for the offenccs undcr Se ctions 4 98 A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.p. .{ct in (1.C.No.273 ot'2O2l on the file of learned Judiciat Magistrate of First (llass-Crrr-n Spr:cial Mobilc Court at Khammam, are hereby quar;hcd.

¶49

Miscr:ll: neous applications, pending i[ any, shall stand cl,rsccl.

¶50

SD/- A.PRI\THIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

#TRT,,E COPY#

To,

l$ECTION OI:FICER