Jagannadhula Srimanth Kumar, And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

¶1

134441

¶2

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9625 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jagannadhula Srimanth Kumar, S/o. Sridhar Rao, Age. 29 years, caste. Brahmin, Occu. Private employee,

¶10

Smt. Jagannadhula Narmada, Wo. Sridhar Rao, Age. 55 years, caste. Brahmin, Occu. House wife,

¶11

Jagannadhula Sridhar Rao, S/o.Venkatrama Narsaiah, Age. 63 years, caste. Brahmin,Occu. Retrd.Employee

¶12

Jagannadhula Hemanth Kumar, S/o. Sridhar Rao, Age, 31 years, caste.Brahmin, Occu. Pvt. Employee,

¶13

(All R/o.H.No.12-95,Brahman street, Parakala (V&M) Warangal Dist. Now A.1 R/o. at Frat No.3426,Janapriya,Nirevarrr#?f,BliEH3?i33fisEat

¶14

No. 1 to 4

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of ieHngana

¶17

Smt. Jagannadhula Sindhuja, Wo. Srimanth Kumar, Age. 26 years, caste. Brahmin, Occu. Private employee, R/o. H.No.40 Janapriya Nilevally,Hyderabad District.

¶18

.^{...RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANTS}

¶19

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'toto call for the records in C.C.No. 443 of 2020 in Crime No.1B of 2020 of P.S..Narsingi for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, IPC and Sec, 3 and 4 of D.P. Act on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special mobile), Medak District, at Medak and quash the same to the extent of all the petitioners /accused No.'1 to 4 and pass

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

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 including the dispense of personal appearance of the petitioners/accused No.2 to 4 C.C.No. 443 of 2020 in Crime No.18 of 2020 of W.P.S..Narsingi for the offences punishable U/s 498-A, IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate^(Special mobile), Medak District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition, and^pass

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Anil Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri V. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

li

¶25

IN THE^IHIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^AT HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI^EADA

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9625 of 2021

¶28

Date:04.02.2O26

¶29

Between:

¶30

Jagannadhula Srimanth Kumar and three others.

¶31

...Petitioners

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecul:or,High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another.

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Tl.ris Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.443 of 2020 in Crime No.18 of 2020 of Narsingi Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special mobile), Medak District ert Medak, for the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-A of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Aqtl-1961 (for short D.t'. Act).

//

\ \

2

ETD, J Crlp_9625_2021

¶41

Heard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. ln spite of service of notice on 14.07.2025, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 till date.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations in the hands of the de-facto complainant and that there are no specific afiegations of harassment against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the petitioners never harassed the de-facfo complainant and that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws never resided with the family of petitioner No.1 and de-facfo comptainant and that there are no specific incidents of harassment reported in the complaint. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of taw. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶43

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleo{ions in the comptaint mentioned that the petitioner Nos.1 to + rrereln i.e., accused Nos. 1 to 4 have harassed the de-facto

¶44

3

¶45

ETD, J Crlp_9625_2021

¶46

complainant for want of additional dowry. He further submitted to pass appropriate orders

¶47

Perused the record.

¶48

Th,e contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that the petitioners have harassed the de-facto complainant. But for this statement, there are no specific incidents of haras,sment nor the mode of harassment narrated in the complaint. lt is simply stated that all the petitioners have harassed the de-fa,:fo complainant for want of additional dowry. lt is further alleged tlrat on 07.02.2019, the station House officer, Narsingi Police station has conducted a counseling session in spite of which the, petitioners continued their harassment. The ingredients of sectiorr 498-A are not made out against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The averment with regard to counselling conducted by station

¶49

House officer on 07.02.2019 points out a prima facie material against petitioner No.1/accused No.1. ln the absence of specific allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the

¶50

\ \

¶51

4

¶52

ETD, J Crlp_9625_2021

¶53

(-

¶54

process of law. The Apex Court has held in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. Stafe of Telanganalthat:

¶55

"A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic oispufes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.

¶56

Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.l have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.l and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse'of the process of the taw in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

¶57

"+. 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.

¶58

I T

¶59

L 1zozs1 3scc 73s

¶60

5

¶61

ETD, J Crlp_9625_2021

¶62

However, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 amounts to an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶63

g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly altowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.zl43 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special mobile), Medak District at Medak, are hereby quashed, However, the attendance of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is clispensed wlth before the trial Court, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial, provided that he shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing. . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶64

stand closed.

¶65

SD/- MOH D.ISMAIL REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Judicial First C lass Magistrate (Special mobite), Medak District 2. The Station House Officer, Women Narsingi police Station, Medak District. 3. One CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran One CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran Sri Ci. Anil Kiran Ci. Anil Kiran Anil Kiran nil Kiran Kiran Kumar Advocate IOPUCJOPUCJ

¶70

One CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran One CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran CC to Sri Ci. Anil Kiran Sri Ci. Anil Kiran Ci. Anil Kiran Anil Kiran nil Kiran Kiran Kumar Advocate IOPUCJOPUCJ 4. Two CCs to putrlic Prosecutor, 5. Two CD Copies High Court for the State of Tetangana (OUT)

BJLB/PSL

,*J

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410212026

ORDER

A.
4ts fi
.b
t'rr tilt ?[i$
oL)

,*tsr6 i