Rangojoo Vidyanath Vs State of Telangana

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6473 oF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Rangojoo Vlyanath, S/o R Vijayakumar, Aged about.31 Years, Occupatron. Employee, Resrdents of H.No.14-21211143/402, Sai Leela Enctave, kapra, Secunderabad-500 062. T.S.

¶8

2 Smt.Vadla Vasundhara, Wo.Rangojoo Vijaya Kumar, Aged 58 years, Occ. Government Service Residents of H.No.1-4 -212111431402: Sai Le6la Enclave, Kapra, Secunderabad-500 062. T.S.

¶9

3 RangojooVijaya Kumar, S/o.Late R. Veerannah, Aged 64 years, Occupation. Retired (Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are Residents of H.No. l -4-21211t431402. Sai Leela Enclave, Kapra, Secunderabad-sO0 062. T.S.).

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOs I to 3

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, through S.H.O. Yellandu P.S., Bhadradi Kothagudem District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hydera6ad.

¶13

..RESPONDENT NO.1

¶14

2 J Mattewada Sowmya, K corony^yerrandu Wo. -*, tlrY'Bl'"1?:lfR:,fff,H:ffi5Bi?3i'rT Uj^{r Q 17'}

¶15

...RESPONDENT NO. 2 /DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶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 Call for the Records in C.C.No.156 of 2O21 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District and quash the same on the ground of abuse of process of law.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

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 all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No.15612021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District pending disposal of the above euash proceedings.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing I te Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr :nts of Sri srinivas Polavarapu, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Arun Kumar. ), Additional public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderat ad on behalf of the State/ Respondent No.1, and no representation on behalf of I lespondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶21

)

¶22

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT} HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICETIRUMALA DEVI EADA}

¶24

CRIMIN^{AL PETITIONNo.6473 ot 2021}

¶25

Date:^09.02.2026

¶26

Between:

¶27

Rangojoo^{Vidyanath andtwo others'}

¶28

..Petitioners

¶29

AND

¶30

State of^{Telangana, throughS'H'O'} Yellandu P.S.,^{Bhadradi Kothagudem} District,^{rep. by its Public Prosecutor'} High Court^{Buildings, Hyderabadand} another.

¶31

...ResPondents

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Criminal^{Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused}

¶34

Nos.1 to 3 to^{call for the records and to quash the proceedings} against them^{in C.C-No.156of 2021 in Crime No'36of 2021 on} the file of^{the Judicial First Class Magistrate'Yellandu'Bhadradri-} Kothagudem^{District, for the offences alleged against the} petitioners are^{under Section420'4g8-A of the lndianPenal} Code,^{1860 (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry} Prohibition^{Act,1961 (for short D'P' Act)'}

¶35

2

¶36

E'f D, J )rlp ,647 3 ,2021

¶37

Heard Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned cour sel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri Arur Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for th: respondent No.1-State. ln spite of service of notice, there is no ro )resentation on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitt:d that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that I ere are no specific incidents of harassment in the complain against the petitioners herein and that they are only omnibus allr,gations and none of the allegations attract the offences under Se: ion 498-4 of IPC against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He further r;r rbmitted that the petitioner No.1 has also filed divorce O.P. ir which the respondent No.2 has filed a memo stating that she l: s no interest to continue the marital life with the petitioner No. I and has no ob.jection to grant divorce from the petitioner No.' Considering the said memo, the family Court has granted divor,;:^yrde orders daled 25.03.2025 in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2024. He furt rer submitted that since both the parties are separated and are liv r g separately, the cause in the present complaint does not su r rive and the continuation of proceedings against the petitionen; would be an

¶39

3

¶40

ETD, J Crlp_6413 2021

¶41

abuse of^{process of law. Therefore,he prayedto quash the} proceedings against the^petitioners

¶42

Learned Additional^{Public Prosecutor has submitted to pass} appropriate orders.

¶43

Perused the record.

¶44

The contents of the^{complaintpoint out specific allegations} against^{petitionerNo.1 that he was a bisexualand that he never} wanted to have^{children, and that he was insisting on either} adoption or no kids^{principle. lt is furtheralleged that he used to} harass her for want of^{additionaldowry and that he insisted} respondent No.2 to swallow^{"unwantedkids" tablets,on taking the} said tablets she developed^{severeillness. lt is further alleged that} he insisted respondent^{No.2 to pursuadehis elder sister in law to} talk to him, as the^{relationship was strainedbetweenthem and} unless she facilitates^{such communication, he has threatened her} of committing suicide^{and further attemptedto commit suicide on} 15.05.2020. The only allegation^{against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is} that they have concealed^{the attitudeof petitionerNo.1 and} performed marriage with her and that they supported^the harassment made by^{accusedNo.1. Thus, there are specific} allegations of^{harassmentalleged against petitioner No.1, while}

¶45

4

¶46

ETD, J Crlp _6473 _2021

¶47

there are omnibus allegations against the petitioner \os.2 and 3, who are the in laws of the de-facto Complainant. Tlt: Apex Court has held in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. Stafe of Te,i nganalthal..

¶48

"A mere reference to the names of famity ment lers in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating thei active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt t; a weil recognised fact, borne out of judicial experiet ce, that there is often a tendency to implicate ail the .,,embers of the husband's family when domestic dispt,t ;s arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generati. ed and sweeping accusations unsupported by t oncrete evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot , ym the basis for criminal prosecution.

¶49

Coufts must exercise caution in such cases Io 1 revent misuse of legal provisions and the legal proce ;s and avoid unnecessary harass ment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appeilant Nos. I Io e who are the members of the famity of appettar t No.l have been living in different cities and have not t tsided in the matrimonial house of appeilant Nc. I and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they canr ot be dragged into crimina! prosecution and the sam= would be an abuse of the process of the law in the z,r sence of specific atlegations made against each of thet .,, 7. ln the present case, there are no specific alleg: :ions against

¶50

petitioner Nos.2 and 3, thus the continuation of prorx:, rdings would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the procee,r ings against

¶51

' lzozsy :scc z:s

¶52

5

¶53

ETD, J Crlp-647) .2021

\

I

/

the petitioner^{Nos.2and 3 are liable to be quashed'While the} proceedings against^{petitioner No.1 shall continue in view of the} Specificallegationslevelledagainsthim.Thelearnedcounselfor the petitioner contends^{that since the divorce is already obtained'} proceedings need not be^{continuedagainst petitioner No'1 also'} But the allegations^{referred to the period duringwhich the} marriage was subsisting^{and there are specific allegations against} the petitioner^{No.1.TheMemoof evidence annexed to the charge} sheet reveals that^{the elders, L-W.Nos.4 and 5, are also listed as} witnesses, and the^{veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested} during the course^{of trial.}

¶58

Therefore, in the^{light of the aforementioned discussion and} relying upon the cited^{decision, this Court is not inclined to quash} the proceedings against^{the petitioner No.1/accused No'1'} However, the continuation^{of criminal proceedings againstthe} petitioners/ accused Nos.2^{and 3 amountsto an abuse of process} of law and is liable^{to be quashed.}

¶59

L Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petition is disposed of' The} proceedings against the^{petitioners/accusedNos'2 and 3 in} C.C.No.156 of^{2021 in Crime No.36 of 2021 on the file of the}

¶60

6

¶61

ETD, J Crlp _6473 _2021

¶62

Judicial First Class Magistrate, yellandu, Bhadradr.i Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed. ln the facts and circur tstances, the attendance of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is c i ;pensed with before the trial Court, unless his presence is specifir ally required during the course of the trial, provided ftat te shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearinl;

¶63

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pendinry if any, shall

¶64

stand closed.

¶65

SD/- I(.BHAVANI SWAMY s SI ;TANT REGISTRAR

¶66

I

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

i . SECTION OFFICER