The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Ambati Jhansi, Wo,Rajesh Goud, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o R/o. 1-1-321351 , Sai Rm Nagar, Kapra, Ranga Reddy district. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 441 ol 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 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 in CC No. 441 ol 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel pending disposal of the above criminal petition and be pleased to pass. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ARJUN MADUPU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CzuMINAL PETITION Nos.1937 OF 2021 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed seek ng to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of leamed Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel ('trial Court' for brevity) flor the oflences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 ofthe lndian Penal Code ('lPC' for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act('DP' Act for brevity)

2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel. representing Sri M.A{un, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ci..litender Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Viv,:kananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I

3. The case of prosecution briefly stated as follows: respondent No.2 submits that she is married to one Rajesh GorLd at her parents village on 17.06.2018 and out of wedlock they were blessed with one child. Accused No. 1 started harassing the respondent No.2 mentally and physically fbr want of additional dowry and thert:aflter. more than two panchayats were held in the presence ofcaste eldr:rs but ofno use. 2 JSR, J Crtp-1s37 -2021 \ \ -:..1 - Accused No.l necked Respondent No'2 out of her matrimonial house on 19.09.2018 and warned her not to come to their house without additional dowry and since' then she has been staying at her parents' house. Aggrieved by the same' respondent No'2 fited a complaint and FIR No.14 of 2019 was registered and after investigation the police filed charge sheet before the triat Court and the same was numbered as C.C.No.441 of 2019. Petitioners filed this criminal petition seeking quash of the C'C'No'441 of 2019' Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners 4. have not committed any offence and they never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. However, respondent No.2 impricated the petitioners as accused on the ground that the petitioners are sister and brother in law of accused No'1' Entire attegations are teveled against accused No.l only' Accused No'1 or respondent No'2 at no point of time lived atong with the petitioners' Even according to the allegations madeinthecomplaintorinthechargesheet,theingredientsunder Sections 498-4 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act do not attract. / 7 3 JSR, J Crlp 1937 2021

5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the only atlegation leveled against petitioner No.2 that an amount of ,{s.7,_50,000/- was transferred to his account by the parents ofrespondent No.2, is for the purpose of purchasing jewelry and other household articles in favour of respondent No.2 only and the petitioner No.2 has handed over the said amount to the parents of respondent No.2. He furthe r submitted that respondent No.2 in her evidence in M.C.No.94 of 2019 aclmitted that Rs.7,25,000/- was transfered from her mother account to the account of petitioner No.2 and pursuant to the translirr of said amount only they purchased the jewetry at CMR Jewelers. Ilence, the offence under Section 498-4 and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. does not attract against petitioner No.2. He further submitted that omnibus allegations are leveled against petitioner No.l only with an intention to implicate her as accused. Hence, continuation of proceeclings against the petitioners is clear abuse ofprocess of law.

6. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners about harassment for additional dowry. The Inves rigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses fiied final report 4 JSR' J Ctlp 1937 2O2l wherein the specific role of the petitioners is mentioned to attract the ingredients under Section 498-4 and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act' whether the amount transferred into the account of petitioner No.2 is towards dowry or for purchasing the jewelry for respondent No'2 is a disputed question of fact. Basing on the deposition of respondent No.2 in M.C.No.94 of 2019, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of proceedings and the petitioners are entitled to place all the evidence before the trial Court during the course of tnal in C.C.No.44l of 2019. He further submitted that before the trial Court, PWI chief examination was completed and the matter is coming lor marking of the documents. At this juncture, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of the proceedings and the criminal petition is Iiable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioners are none other than the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.l. The marriage between accused No'l and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 17.06.2018, thereafter disputes started between them. Even according to the allegations made in the 5 JSR, J Crlp 1937 _2021 complaint and charge sheet major allegations ar,: leveled against accused Nos. I and 2 about demanding additional dou.ry and there are no specific allegations against petitioner No. l, that she committed any criminal breach of trust to attract ingredients for the offence under Section 506 of II'}C.

8. In so far as petitioner No.2/accused No.4 is corcemed there are specific allegations levelled against him that an amount of Rs.7,25,0001 rvas transferred into his account by the parents of respondent No.2 towards dowry, whereas the contenti,n of the leamed counsel lor the petitioner is that the said amount was transferred into his account by the mother of respondent No.2 for the purpose of purchasing jewclry and other artictes for the benefit of respondent No.2 and the said amount was withdrawn and handcd over to the parcnts of the respondent No.2. Whether the said amount was transferred by the parents ol respondent No.2 towards dorvry or for purchasing jewelry to respondent No2 and whether pctitioner No.2 handed over the said amount to the parents ofrespondent No.2 or not, the same are disputed questions of fact and same have to be adjudicated and to be decided after full fledged trial. H.nce this court 6 JSR, J Crlp.1937 2O2t \IIII\:-r is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.4.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalt, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court iltustratively catalogued categories of cases walranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse oI process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends ofjustice.

10. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations against petitioner No.l to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 498(A), 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.l/accused No.3 is abuse of process of law and same is tiable to be quashed. ' 1992 Supp (t) SCC 335 7 JSR, J CrIp 1937 _2021 1 l. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in part and proceedings in C.C.No.44l of 2019 is hereby qr.rashed against petitioner No.l/accused No.3 and criminal petitiorL is dismissed against petitioner No.2/accused No.4. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances or- the case, the presence of the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 before the trial court is dispensed with sub.iect to a condition that he shall represent the matter through his counsel on each and every date of adjournment and he shall appear before the trial court, whenever his presencc is required. In default, the trial court may proceed rvith the matter, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To s

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Ga wel 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Markook, Siddipet District 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hy'ierabad (OUT) 4 One CC to SRI ARJUN MADUPU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TPK,,?SI, r HIGH COURT DATED: 07 11112025 \ :t- /.: ., -.-,..,.(.-t._..-, j -<r. ' ,t-- ' _+-3. ORDER CRLP.No.1937 of 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED q