The High Court · 2025

1 . State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad. 2. Smt. Burgula Sowjanya, C/o. B. Sai Kumar, Age. 28 years, Occ. Household, Ri/o. LIG - 268, 7th Phase, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the CC No 10412022 on the file of X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, alleging offences U/S 323, 354, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and pass f.A. NO:2OF2022 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 10412022 on the file of X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, alleging offences U/S 323, 354, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.M.R. Velu , Advocate for the Petitioners and of Smt S. Madhavi, learned Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, learned counsel for the unofficial Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER }' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1316 OF 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the pet tioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.104 of 2022 pending on tl-re file of learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

02. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Habeeb Abubakar l\lhamed, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor forthe State. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant's brother's marriage was performed tvith one Deepika on 25 11 2020 and they led happy maritetl life for a period of few days. Thereafter, the said Deepika developed aversion against the complainant iand his family members and started quarreling for petty issues 2 On 30.03.2021 she left the matrimonial home along with her belongings by threatening the complainant family members. On 28.04.2021 at about 1130 hours the said Deepika's father and their relatives i.e. the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 visited the complainant's house and all the family members of the complainant were present in the house. The accused No.1 threatened them with dire consequences stating that he will register criminal cases through his influence in the Police Department. The accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of the complainant's hair and the accused No.1 slapped her and caught hold her hand and misbehaved with her. Thereafter, the complainant's parents and brother intervened and rescued her life.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. The alleged incident took place on

28.04.2021 but the FIR was lodged on 12.10.2021. There is delay of 6 months in lodging the FlR. The father of the complainant has been working as Assistant Sub-lnspector of Police in S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The 3 said Deepika was harassed by her husband and in-laws t.e complainant family members, for which, she lodged FIR No.25B ot 2021 dated 27.07.2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Rapthadu Police Sitation, Ananthapur District, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4, 506 read with 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present complaint was lodged on 12.10.2021 as a counter blast to harass the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners are relatives of the said Deepika who came as elders 16, pacify the issues and they are innocent and have not contmitted any offence

05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.l to 3 relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dilawar Singh v Sfafe of Dethil wherein at Paragraph No.B it was held that: 'zooo 1s; scc (cRL) 330 4 "8. ln criminal tnal one of the cardinal principles for the Courl is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the repoft. Delay sometimes affords oppoftunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case lo be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. lf no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. ln Thulia Kali v. The Slafe of Tamil Nadu (AlR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the repoft not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted sfoDl as a result of deliberation and consultation. ln Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P. (AlR 1974 SC 606) the position was explained that whether the delay ls so /ong as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case rnusf depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses haye no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for €-, // // ,i the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the repoft is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution."

06. On the other hand, learned Ass;istant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and f actual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court arrd it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 07 . Having regard to the submissions ma,Ce on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparerrt that the alleged incident happened on 28.04.2021 at 1130 hours. The impugned FIR was lodged on 12.10.,2021 . There is unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than five months in lodging the FlR. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version cf the case to be presented before the Court at the eerrliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either cc,ming 6 before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. lf no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case.

08. Further, it is an admitted fact that there are matrimonial disputes between the parties. ln that regard, the said Deepika filed a case in FIR No.258 of 2021 dated

27.07.2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapur District, registered for the offences under Sections 4gg-A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, wherein the complainant and her family members were arrayed as accused. The father of the complainant has been working as Assistant Sub-lnspector of police in S.R.Nagar police Station, Hyderabad. lt appears that the present case has been filed with abnormal delay, as a counterblast to the case filed under Section 498-4 of lpC. Moreover, there is no medical record like statement of the competent Doctor or wound certificate to show that the complainant or her family members sustained any injuries in the hands of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. ln view of the above I I 7 observations, the required material ingredients for constituting the offences under Sections 323, 352t, 506 read with 34 of lpC are not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3.

09. On a careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet averments, to prove the basic allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences, there is no single independent witness examined b,/ the Police. Out of twelve list of witnesses cited, five are family members of the complainant, who are intere,sted witnesses

10. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law raid down by the Hon'bre supreme court of rndi;a in the above decision, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioners_accu:sed Nos.'l to 3 do not attract the alleged offences. Theretore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. I I l l i I I I 8

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners- accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.104 o'f 2022 pending on the file of learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are herebY quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL DE UTY REGISTRAR ,ITRUE COPY'/ ECTION OFFICER To

1. The X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate' Kukatpally' . i. il;3i"ti* Hor"*omc"'' riHe Police-Station' Medchal District' s o"L cc to Sri cMR velu, Advocate IoPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC pil6SeCUfOn' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD coPies. BJLB/PSL I I tor.IHE S l4 1 0 JUL 2m5 = HIGH COURT DATED:01t04t202s ORDER CRLP.No.1316 ot 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 6t6