Abhishek Shukla Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

434441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abhishek Shukla, S/o.Ra;esh Shukla, Aged: 31 Years, Occu: Software Employee, R/o H. No. 5-10-16, Flat No.4, 2no Floor. Alkapuri Township, Manikonda, Hyderabad, N/o. E-3/31, Nupur Kun1. Near Paras City Area Colony, Huzur,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou( of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

¶12

Smt. Harjeev Kaur @ Harleev Kaur Shukla, W/o Abhishek Shukla, D/o. Gurubachan Singh. Aged; 30 Years Occu: Pvt. employee, R/o H.No.5-10-16, Falt No.4,2no Floor, Alkapuri Township, Manikonda, Hyderabad, Presently at' Plot No.202, Near Masab tank, Shanthi nagar, Hyderabad,^-' OE^ _' rr:,

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 call for the records in C C.No. 19 of 2019 in Crime No.26 of 2019 of P.S. WPS, Gachibowli for the offences punishable U/s 498-A, 323 of IPC on the file of Hon'ble Xlll Metropolitan Magist3rte, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶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 Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings rn C.C.No. 19 of 2019 in Crime No.26 of 2019 of P.S. WPS, Gachibowli for the offences punishable U/s 498-4, 323 of IPC on the file of Hon'ble Xlll Metropolrtan Magistarte, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District pending drsposal of the above Criminal Petition-

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J Azad Chendra Shekar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, the Public Prosecutor for the State of rerangana on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

rN rHE^{HiGH couRr Ff,$rtJ*=o?t#E oF TELANGANA}

¶20

THE HON'BLE^{SMT.JUSTICETIRUMALADEVI EADA}

¶21

cRl MI^{NALPETtrtONNo.05 of2021}

¶22

Date of^{Order: 09.02.2026}

Between:

Abhishek^Shukla

Petitioner/Accused

And

The State^{of Telanganarep' bY its} Public^{Prosecutor and another}

¶28

... ResPondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal^{Petitionis filed under Section 482 of The Code} ofCriminalProcedure(forshort,.Cr.P.C.,)seekingtoquashthe proceedings^{against the petitioner/accusedin CC'No'19 of 2019} arising^{out of Crime No'26 of 2019 of Gachibowli Women Police} Station,^{registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4} and 323^{of lPC, on the file of the learned Xlll Metropolitan} Magistrate,^{Cyberabad at Kukatpally' RangaReddyDistrict'}

¶31

Heard Sri^{J'AzadChandraSekhar'learned counselfor the} petitioner/accused^{as well as Sri Arun KumarDoddla' the learned} Additional^{Public Prosecutorappearrngfor the resPondentNo ' 1 -} Statq^{Respondent No'2 remained absent inspiteof serviceof notice}

¶32

2

¶33

through the Assistant public prosecutor as well as through paper publication

¶34

ihe iearned petitioner,s counsel submits that the parties herein have obtained mutual consent divorce decree on 23.12.2020 yrde F C.O p.No.B4 of 2020, on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and are living separately. He further submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the parties on 10.01.2020 and accordrng to point No.6 laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding, none of the parties shall initiate any civil or criminal cases against the other party. But unfortunately, all the terms in the Memorandum of Understanding are not reflected in the mutual consent decree that is passed by the Family Courl videits order dated 23.12.2020. He further submitted that once divorce is obtained on mutual consent and a Memorandum of Understanding was enterecl into between the parties, the respondent No.2 herein ought not to have rnitiated any criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein. Hence, the present case vide C.C.No.19 of 2O19 does not stand for legal scrutiny. He further submitted that on an earlier occasion, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint in Crime No.177 of 2O,lB before Nar-singi police Station based on which

¶35

3

¶36

C.C.No.2718^{ol 2O'18was registered against the petitionerand the} same^{was endedin acquittalon 21'10'2022' Pursuantto which'} Crl.P.No.4of2o2lwasfiledbythepetitionerandthesamewas dismissed^{as infructuouson 19'06'2023on the ground that the Trial} court has^{concluded its trial and acquittedthe accused therein' who} is petitioner^{herein'He further submittedthat since thereare no} merits^{in C.C.No.19 of 2019' continuation of proceedings againstthe} petitioner would^{be an abuse of process of law' He thereforeprayed} to^{quash the proceedings against the petitioner'}

¶37

Perused^{the record'The parties herein have obtained mutual} consent^{divorceon 23'12'2020vide F'C'O'P'No'84 of 2020' on the} file of the^{learned Family Court Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrictat} L.B.Nagar,^{Hyderabad'A Memorandum of Understanding was} entered^{into betweenthe partieson 1O'01 '2020'lt is borneout by} record that^{C.C-No.2718of 2018 was pending againstthe petitioner} basedonasimilarcomplaintlodgedbytherespondentNo.2.ltis borne out^{by recordthat C'C'No'2718ot 2O1a was ended in acquittal} on 21.1O.2O22and^{that again' this false complaintis lodged against} the^{petitioner.The respondent remained absent inspite of service of} notice through^{the AssistantPublic Prosecutor as well as through} ,n.'*0",^{publicationfiled against the respondent No 2'As far as}

¶38

4

¶39

this complaint is concerned, the defacto complainant has reiterated the story about the alleged harassment made by her husband. A perusal of the complaint reveals that there are omnibus allegations alleged against the petitioner and that whenever she tried to reave the house, her husband used to take away her bag and does not let her to go out. There are no specific dates of harassment and the allegations are similar to those filed in C.C.N o.2l1g of201g, which ended in acquittar. A perusar of the judgment dated 21 .10.2022 passed in C.C.No.2Z.t B of 2018 reveals that pW1 turned hostile and has stated that she does not know the contents mentioned in the complaint. Hence, the matter ended in acquittal. lt is elicited that respondent No.2 is rn continuous litigation with the petitioner for the past many years. Srnce there are no specific allegations alleged against the petitioner in the present case, there is no point in continuing the proceedings against him.

¶40

Hence, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1g of 2Olgarising out of Crime No.26 of 2019 of Gachibowli Women police Station, registered for the offences punrshable under Sections 4gg_A and 323 of lPC, on the file of the learned Xlll Mekopolitan Magistrate,

¶41

5

¶42

Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Ranga^{Reddy District, are hereby} quashed.

¶43