Mettu Mahendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOFAUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6025 OF 2O2S

¶6

Between:

¶7

l. Mettu Mahendar Reddy, S/o. M.ChardaraReddy, Aged. 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3-5, Vivekanada Nagar, Medipally, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy€8

¶8

M. swapna, wo. Meftu MahendarReddy, os"d.'ffygftiffl'Jt#ru0, R:/o. H.No.3-5, Mvekanada Nagar, Medipally, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy-98. ...A6 (Aunt of Al)

¶9

Mettu. Kondal Reddy, S/o. M.Chandar Reddy, Aged About. 51, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H,No. 2{4, Sunkishala, Valigonda Mandal, llalgonda District508't 12

¶10

Meftu sriratha, wo.Kondar Reddy, Ased oil:'11,9'":'ffi13ff.:tArl H.No. 2-44, Ri/o. Sunkishala, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District-S08112 ...A8 (Aunt of Al)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Through P.S., WPS Saroomagar

¶13

...RESPONDENT'COiIPLAINANT

¶14

Smt. Palreddy Vanaja, Wo. Late Palreddy Bhupat Reddy, Aged About.65 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Plot No. 21, H.No. 16-116, Madhavanagar, Road No. 19, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District500097 ...RESPONDENT'DEfACTOCOiIPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 255 of 2O25 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar against the Petitioners/Accuses A5 to AB

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 in CC. No. 255 ot^2O25 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar against the Petitioners/Accuses A5 to A8ⁱⁿ pending disposal of the Quash Petition

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusir g the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr :nts of sri cH VENKAT REDDY' Advocate for the petitioners and sRr M vr /EKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRosEcuroR on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared forthe Respondent No.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

TIIE HONOURABLE SUT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶21

CRIUINAL PEIITION No.6t025 of 2o.25

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to^{quash the} proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 to 8 in C.C.No.255 of 2C25 on the file of the learned III^Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of} First cl,ass, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,^{registeredfor} the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,^{4O6 and5O6 of} the Indian Penal Code, 186O and Sections 3 and^{4 of the} Dow5r Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that on 26.L1.2O24,^de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the^{Police stating} tl.at her daughter, Sree Nithya, was married to^Alimineti Rahuf Reddy/accused No. 1. The marriage^{was tookplace on} 26.1C.2023 at Ev€nt Vitla Function Hall,^Nagole, in^the presence of elders. At ttt€ time of marriage, as^{per the} demand of the groorn and his family, she^{gave Rs.4O lakhs in} cash, 35 tulas of gold, and 'h kg of silver as dowry.^{After tJle} marriage, her daughter lived happily^{vrith her husband for}

¶25

2

¶26

sxs,.r )rl-P.Xo.6O2S of Zr25

¶27

about 10 days. Thereafter, Rahul Reddy lef for Australia, Ieaving Sree Nithya at his parents. house in Ko; remula Village, where she stayed for two months. [.ater, aftt r her husband sent her a visa, Sree Nithya joined him in Aus ralia and they stayed at 8 Dennelly Crescent, South More ng VIC 3752. Subsequently, Sree Nithya informed her motl er tJ:at Rahul Reddy had previously married another wom,:t I in Australia and had obtained a divorce. She furthbr inforrr :d that he was subjecting her to mentat ald physical harassme rt, demanding she sell her propert5r and give him additional r loney, stating the dowr5r given was insuflicient. Eventually, he left her at the house of known persons and stopped respondir g to her calls. When ttre complainant informed the parbnts zr d relajves of Rahul Reddy about ttre situation, t.Iley threatenr i and abused her, warning her not to disclose the rnatter to alr .one.

¶28

Basing on the said complaint, the polir r registered a case in Crime No.48O of 2024 for the offence ; punishable under Sections 498-4., 406 and 5O6 of the Indizu : penal Code, 186O ald Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibit on Act, 1961 and after completion of investigationi they filec :harge sheet vide C.C.No.255 of 2025 before the learned I.I Additional

¶29

<br>

¶30

3

¶31

sKfi,J Crl.P.tro.6o25 of 2orrs

¶32

Jr:nior Civil Judge-cum{Il Additional Judicial^Magistrateof First cl,ass, Ranga Reddy District at^{L.B. Nagar.Aggrievedby} the said charge sheet, the petitioners/^{accusedNos.s to 8 filed} the present crirninal^petition to^{quash the proceedingsagainst} them

¶33

Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned^{counsel appearing} on behalf of the petitioners as^{well as Sri M. Vivekananda} Reddy, Iearned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingon} behalf of respondent No.l - State.^{Though noticeservedupon} rcspondent No.2, none appeared^{on her behalf.}

¶34

kamed counsel for the^{petiLioners submitted that the} petitioners were wrongly implicated in^{the said caseand tl.e} allegations leveled against^{tl:lem, prima} facie,^{do not constitute} any offence as alleged in tlle^{complaint. He furthersubmitted} that the petitioners never^{interferedinthe matrimonial} disputes between accused No.l^{and daughter of respondent} No.2. Police fited the charge^{sheet withoutveriSingtJre} matter and there are no^{specific allegationsagainstthe} petitioners except stating tJrat they^{supportedaccusedNo'1'}

¶35

sKs,J >tl.P.No -6025 of 2O2A

¶36

Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash t re proceedings 2 ga inst tJre petitioners.

¶37

On the other hand, Iearned Assistant pu blic prosecutor submitted tJlat the petitioners are not residin I witJr accused No. 1 and ttre daughter of respondent No.2 a_r: < further, there are no specific allegations against the petitiorLr rs. Ttrerefore, he prayed tJ:e Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶38

7 . In tl.e light of the submissions made by both the lear,ned counsel and a perusal of the mater. z I available on record, it appears that the petitioners are the <l stant relatives of aecused No. I and the allegations leveled a51r inst them are that they harassed the daughter of respon,i :nt No.2 and demanded additional dowry. It is specifrcall5. contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 1 he petitioners are not residing with accused No.I and thr daughter of respondent No.2 and further contended that except supporting accused No.I, they never interf: ed with tJle matrimonial disputes between them.

¶39

5

¶40

sxsy' CiLP.Io.6O25 of 2()25

¶41

At this stage, it is imperative to note^{the judgmentof the} Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achln @rpta^{as. *ateol} fraryanw antd another^1, wherein in^{paragraph No.35, it is} held as under:

¶42

'35. In one of the receat^{prooouncements} of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors^vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors-, 2023^SCC OnLine SC 95O, authored by one of us^(J.El. Pardiwala, j.l, the legal Principle^applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C^was era-mined. Therein, it was observed^that when an accused comes beforc the^High Court, invoking either the ir rcrent^power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the^criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on^the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or institut€d^{with the} ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance,^{then in} such circumstances, the High Court^owesa duty to look into the FIR with^{care and a Iittle} more closely. It was furttrer^{observedthat it} wiII not be enough for tlre Court to^{look into} tl-Ie averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for t}Ie purpose of ascerta.ining^whether the necessary ingredients to constitute^the alleged offence are disclosed or^{not as, in} frivolous or vexatious^{proceedings,ttre Court} owes a duty to look into many other^attending

¶43

'C.i-in"t^{AppedNo - 2379o{ 20/24}

¶44

6

¶45

srs,J :rLP.[o.6ql5 of 2025

¶46

r-.

¶47

circumstances emetgirg from the reccr I of the case over and above the averEents ar I, if need be, witl1 due carc and circumspecti() , to try and read between the tines..

¶48

As observed by the Honble Supreme ( ep1 i1 flshin Gupta (supra), the averrnents in the complain _ has to disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences. In tlLr present case, except omnibus allegations, there are no other speciFrc a.llegati,ons against tJle - petitioners, who ar ) the distant relatives of accused No. l. Further, the Hon,bl: Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand2, has otrr erved that the family members, who are residing away from accused No.1, cannot be roped into the case. In the preser ! case, except bald allegations, there are no speciflc allegatio: rs against the petitioners. In view thereot as the petitioners il e not residing along with accused No. 1, the allegations agzr nst tl:rem are considered to be vague. Therefore, this C,t rrt is, of the considered view that even if the trial is conducte i, no purpose would be served and tleat since there are no rther specilic allegations against the petitioners, the proce,-lings against them are liable to be quashed.

tlzotol z scc soz

I

7

srs", C<I-P.I[o.6O2S of 2q|E

¶53

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed arrd ttre proceedings agninst the petitioners in C.C.No.255 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Jud.icial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby guashed.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starrd closed.

¶55

I

¶56

SD'. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i.

¶57

,,TRUE COPY"

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,