Thc High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.78 oF 2O2L ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Secti on 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/ accused, seeking to quash C.C.No.376 of 2018 on the file of learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered 1n Cr.No.455 of 2Ol7 for the offence punishable under Section 5O6 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr.Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel appearing on beha-lf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Na-eer Khan, learned counsel representing Mr.T.Bala Moharr Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 5-7 -2017 , P.S.Jubilee Hills received a complaint from the 2"d respondent/complainant stating that he has only one daughter by name Ganga Bhavani and he performed her marriage with the petitioner herein/Dr. Surendernath Reddy, during negotiation the petitioner demanded an 2 EW,,t 2,1p.flo.7a oJ 2O27 arnount of Rs.1,O0,OO,OO/- towards dowry and he paid an arnount of Rs.50,00,OOOl-. After marriage, the petitioner and his parents harassed the daughter of the 2"d respondent. The daughter of complainant had filed DVC and 498 A case against the petitioner/ accused. While things stood thus, altegedly the petitioner herein started sending message through what's app to the complainant's mobile number 9951133333 demanding to withdraw the cases filed against him by sending abusive message in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.

4. Basing on complaint filed by the 2"d respondent, Police have registered a case in crime No.455 of 2017, dated 5-7 -2017 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 506 of I.P.C and filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.376 of 2018 before the learned Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused contended that the investigation conducted by the police did not reveal that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The police, without conducting the investigation I :affiF ,I 3 EW,J C"LP.No,78 oJ 2O21 properly, filed the charge sheet with all fa,lse and baseless allegations. He further contended no case is made out against the Petitioner herein as the charge-sheet does not reveal any specific allegation other than vague arrd. bald allegations. There is no specific overt act attributed to the Petitioner herein. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court Prot R.K.Vtjagasarathg and another a, Sudha Seethan and anotherl, r.r,herein the Apex Court held that "utere the auennents in the complainant read on its face, do not disclose the Ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the penal code, it amounts to abuse of process of lau."

6. He further relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana a. Bhajan Ld.l & Ors.2, u,herein certain guidelines were issued for the exercise of these powers by the Courts. In guideline No.3 it was laid down that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and do not make out a ' (2019:| 3 Scale 567 ' 1992 S.rpp. (1) scc 335 4 EW,J CrLp.llo.78 oJ 2021 a1 case agalnst the accused, the Court may quash the F.I'R' as well as the investigations. A note of caution was added by observing that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It was held that the Court would not be justihed in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sutapan Kumar Guha and others3, para 27 of the iudgment laid doun in no uncertain tefltts thdt the police hr:s no unJettered discretion to comrr.ence inoestigations under Section 757 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Their right oJ Inquiry is conditioned bg the existence of reason to suspect the commission oJ a cognizable offence and theg cdnnot reasonablg hanse reo.son so to suspect unless the F'I'R' prima-facie discloses the comtnission oJ such offence' It was held that if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cogni.zable offence, the Coutt utould be justiJied in quashing the investigations on the bosis o;f Infonncltion a.s laid ot receioed. In pdrq 22. oJ the same judgmen| it uas Jurther obsenred that unlitnited discretion to the police in the sphere of irunstigations carn become a ruthless destroger oJ personal freed'om' ThereJore, the power to inuestigate must be exercised' strtctlg on the condition on uhich it is granted bg the Code, ' (1982) 1 scc 561 I : ' i i I t \ 5 EW,J CiLP.No.TA ol2O21 Hence, he seeks to a,llow the Criminal Petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions made'by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that allegations leveled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the police, after conducting the investigation, have filed the charge sheet, unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted, truth calnot be elicited and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition,

8. A perusal of record reveals the contentions raised by the respective counsel are triable issues which cannot be gone into in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner/accused being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing, failing which this order stands vacated automatically. I 6 EWl CrLp.No-7a ol2021 \

9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of, granting liberty to agitate all the issues and grounds that are raised before this Court including filing of discharge application belore the concerned Court In the event of such application being made, the concerned Court shall dispose it of on merits. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha-ll st d closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD ISMAIL ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR SECTION OFFICEIT i To' Thc XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad 'I hc Station FIouse O{Eoer, Jubilee Hills Poli{re Station' I{yderabad One CC to Sri. Pulla Rao Yellanki, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. T.Bata Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] one cc to the Pubtic Prosecutor, High courl for the State of'lelangana' Hyderabad 't'wo CD CoPies

4. 5 6 PSK/PSL ry-- HIGH COURT \ DATEDzl2l02l2025 OIiDER CRLP.No.78 of 2021 I I '( 3 o \E SIAT€. 2 6 t\P,l 2$6 o t-,)61:::, -('"' I t(l I DISPOSED OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION