Lankela Laxmareddy and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Iⁱ ! -

134441

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT 1

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5855 OF 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Lankela Laxmareddy and Another, S/o. Lankela Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Farmer, R/o. H.No. 9-43, Patha Gudibanda, Kodada Mandalam, Gudibanda, Suryapet, Telangana - 508238.

¶7

Lankela Sugunamma, Wo. Lankela Laxmareddy, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No. 9-43, Patha Gudibanda, Kodada Mandalam, Gudibanda, Suryapet, Telangana - 508238.

¶8

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana and Another, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, Through Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam, Telangana.

¶11

Sushma Lankela, Wo. Lankela Rajashekar Reddy, Aged about 23^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Kamalapuram Village, Kodada Mandalam, Gudibanda, Suryapet, Telangana - 508238.

¶12

... RESPON DENT/COMPLAI NANTS

¶13

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 and^quash the C.C No. 1464 of 2021 on the file of the ll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Khammam, u/Sec. 498A, 507 of IPC and 3 and 4 OF DP Act, in FIR No.149 of 2O21by PS Mudigonda against the Petitioners / Accused No.2 and 3,

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimina! Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No. 1464 of 2021 on the file of the Honourable ll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Khammam, u/Sec. 498A, 507 of IPC and 3 and 4 OF DP Act, in FIR No.149 of 2O21 by PS Mudigonda, including the appearance of the Petitioners / Accused No.2 and 3,;

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SUDARSHAN MALUGARI ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2, The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

{ tI 4t ,I

¶18

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.586S OF 202i

¶21

DATE: 11-02-202G

¶22

Betweern:

¶23

Lankela Laxmareddy and another

¶24

Petitioners

¶25

And

¶26

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, Lligh Court of Hyderabad, through Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam, Telangana and another Respondents

¶27

oRpEr!:

¶28

T'his criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.1464 of 2O21 on the file of learned ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistr,ate at Khammam, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A iand 507 of lndian Penal code, 1860 (for short'lpc') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short^,Dp Act').

¶29

Heard sri sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitiorulrs and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

¶30

-----:r

¶31

2 , ETD,J Crl.P.No 5865 202 I

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits tnat'tnere are no allegations against the petitioners herein, even according to the complaint. ln the absence of any incidents of harassment or allegations aftracting the ingredients of Section 498-4 of the IPC against the petitioners herein, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶33

Despite notice being sent to the respondent No.2, the same was refused. Hence, it is deemed to have been served.

¶34

Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that there are specific allegations against the husband of the de facto complainant that he harassed her and^prayed to^pass appropriate orders.

¶35

Perused the record.

¶36

The contents of the complaint and the statement of LW1 as well as the recitals of charge sheet point out specific allegations of harassment against the husband of de facto complainant. There is not even one averment against the^petitioners herein but for it is mentioned in the last line of complaint that the husband and in laws have harassed her. A perusal of the complaint and the statement of LWI reveals that she was not even taken to her in-laws house and she

¶37

II

¶38

3 ETD,J Crl.P.No 5E65 2021

¶39

was m.rde to reside in the relatives^{housefor two months, after which} she wrrs taken to her^parents house.^{That beingso, there are no} allegations of harassment against the^{petitioners herein. ln the} absence of any allegation to attract the ingredients^{of Section498-4 of} lPC, continuation of^proceedings against them^{would be an abuse of} process of law.

¶40

ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others^{v. State of Telangana} and anrotherl, it was held by the Honourable^{Apex Court that if there} are omnibus allegations against the accused^{and no specific incidents} of harassment are made out, the^{proceedings need to be quashed.lt} was held that:

¶41

"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a^{matrimonialdispute,} without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a^well- recognized fact, bome out of^judicial experience,^that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise^{out of} a matrimonial discord. Such^generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal

¶42

'^{2024Larvsuir(Sc) I108}

¶43

ETD,J Crl.P.No_5855_2021

¶44

4

¶45

process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members."

¶46

ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. State of Telangana^and others2, it was held that criminal^proceedings against^relativesin domestic violence/dowry cases can be^quashed if the^allegations against them are vague, general, or lack specific evidence^{of active} involvement or instigation. Mere awareness or^{non-interventiondoes} not amount to culpability. Courts must^guard against^{misuseof legal} provisions to prevent harassment of innocent family members.

¶47

ln the light of the above said decision and^{in view of the above} held discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed^{and the proceedings} against petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3^{in C.C.No.1464of 2021 on} the file of learned ll Additional Judicial^{First Class Magistrateat} Khammam are hereby^quashed.

¶48

Miscellaneous Petitions^{pending, if} any,^{shall stand closed.}

¶49

€$I:KJa-*rr'316";151

¶50

SD/. K.BHAVANI^SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To, 1. The ll Addl.^{Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam} 2. The Station^{HouseOfficer,MudigondaP'S'' Khammam}