High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Valaboiu Susmitha, W/o. Valaboju Narender, aged 33 years, Occ: Home Maker, R/o. it.tto.t-Salt, Bharathnagar, Che{al, Jangaon District.

3. Thogati Venugopal, S/o.Venkata Narayana,. aged 45 years, Occ:Govt Teacher, Rio. H. No.9-2-55 Girmajipet, Warangal

4. Smt.Thogati Suhasini, Wo.Thogati Venugopal, Aged 32 years, Occ:Home Maker, R7o. H.No. 9-2-55, Girmajipet, Warangal ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4 TO 7 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana

2. Smt. Maroju Swetha, Wo- Sandeep Kumar, aged 27 years, Occ. Lecturer, Rio. 4-2-77 , Gundlagaida, Jangaon. ...RESPONDENTS 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 c.c.No. 1 194 of 2019, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class -cum- Principal Junior civil Judge at Jangaon against the Petitioners/Accused No- 4 to 7. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O2O Petition under section 482 of C1.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 C.C.No 1194 of 2019, pending on the fale of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class --cum- Principal Junior civil Judge at Jangaon against the Petitioners/Accused No.4 to 7 on each date of adiournment. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR ,Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of sri p. sREENIVASA RAo, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JI,STICE K.SUREIIDER CRIMINAL PDTITION No.1832 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled under Sectiot 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1I94 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and Sections 3, and 4 of D.P.Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekalanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a Telugu t5ped complaint with Jangaon police on L2-LL.2O|9 , alleging that her marriage with accused No.l was performed on

22.06.2014. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.8,5O,OOO/- and household articles qzorth Rs.1,OO,OOO/- were given as dowry. Few days after the marriage, her husband and in- laws started harassing her mentally and physically for additional dowry. Cell phone of respondent No.2 was taken, and she was not provided food. Because of beatings by 7 acoused, she got aborted. Thereafter, she again carried pregnancy and started sta5nng in her parents, house. Though she delivered a child, neither the husband nor in-laws have taken care of respondent No.2 or child, in turn they used to harass her. Panchayat was held by the elders and thereafter, accused No. 1 took respondent No.2 to Hyderabad and started living separately. Accused No. I took her cell phone. When respondent No.2 asked for cell phone, accused No.1 beat her indiscriminately, resulting in bleeding injury to her nose and mouth. She also attempted to commit suicide due to the harassment of accused No. 1. The said information of respondent No.2 trying to commit suicide was given by aceused No.l to pa_rents of respondent No.2, who took her to Jqngaon. Though counseling was held by the elders and also in the Court, there was no change in the behavior of accused No.l. Hence, the complaint filed by respondent No.2.

4. On the basis of the complaint, police register.ed a case ald {iled charge-sheet against accused Nos.l to 7.

5. Respondent No.2 and accused Nos.l to 3 are residents of Jangaon. Accused Nos.4 to 7/petitioners herein are residents of Chennur and Warangal respectively. In the 3 - complaint filed by respondent No'2 and a statement before thePolice,shenarratedthatttresepetitionershaveinstigated the act of harassment by accused Nos'l to 3' Apart from ttre omnibus and vague allegations, there are absolutely no circumstances or events that are narrated by respondent No.2, involving these petitioners, who are accused Nos'4 to 7' fortheCourttoinferharassment.Suchomnibusallegations cannot form basis to continue prosecution of the petitioners who were living separately and at far of distance in other towns from the respondent No'2' By the time of marriage of accrrsed No. 1 and the respondent No-2, the petitioners were living separatelY. ln Kolhkashan Kolusar @ Sonam and others a' State 6. of Bil:uarrt, the Honble Supreme Court held that, unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed' Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court should be careful in proceeding against the relatives, who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations - t (2022) 6 scc 599 -t ) 4

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of p"eeti @ttpte a. S:tate of Jharklund.2,ineld. that, the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations rnade, with great care and circumspection, especially against husband,s relatives, who were living in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple.

8. Based on the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court, since the allegations are vague ald not specifi.c,. the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. proceed.ings against 9 . Therefore, the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7, in C.C.No.Ll94 of 2O19, on the file of t.lle Judicial First Class Magrstrate, Jangaon, are quashed- Accordingly, the criminal petition is aflowed. Miscellaneous Fetitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. @0fi+sct- [6+ //TRUE COPY// To, ..SD/- MOHD.-ISMAIL QE:PUTY REGTSTRAR I! ,SECTION OFFICER / 1 . The court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Janagaon. 2. The Station House Officer, Janagaon police Station, Hyderabad. t l},i"?r",,t 1"r3fi;'0"" Prosecutor, High cou( for the stare of retansana at

4. One CC to SRt. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUCJ t,p 5. One CC to SRt p w; ;";::::: " SREENTVASA RAo' Advocate ropucl HIGH COURT DATED:05l03l2O2S ORDER -=''- ['rr I hE s r4 ( -l'; 0e;ut p5 I 7 C CRLP.No.1832 of 2020 P4rcHri-l ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I fi )(,