The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLU MIDHUN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 'l & 2 and Sri Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate representing Sri T.Surya Satish, Advocate for the Respondent No.3; The Court made the following: ORDER ,i,, THE HOI\TOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUCiOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2859 OF 2O2l ORDER: ,,/ This Crim inal Petition is frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.2OO of 2O2O, on the ftle of V Additional Metropolitan Magrstrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC ancl Sections 3 and 4 of t!'e Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard tlle learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3.d respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant frled an English written complaint on 31.07.2019 allegrng that on 26.o5.2010, her marriage was performed with one G.Ranjith Kumar/ the petitioner herein and at the time of marriage, on the demand of her in-laws, Rs.30,OO,O0{)/- cash, 6O tulas of gold ornaments and 5 kg. silver ornaments were given. After marriage, she joined her husband for conjugal life. For one month, her in-laws looked after her well, thereafter, rhey started harassing her both mentally and physically demanding her to get _ I 2 Honda CRV car from her parents. On 19.11.2O11, she gave birth to a male child. On knowing the same, they came to the hospital to see her, but knowing that the de fotto complainant recorded her name in the hospital as Sowjanya, her mother-in-law abused her in filthy language. Later, though the de facto complatnanl invited her husband and in-laws for 21.t day function, they refused to attend the same. After 8 months of delivery, at the request of her husband, when she along with the child went to her matrimonial house, 20 persons, who were present in the house abused her and her parents in filthy language and demanded her father to sign on the blank stamp papers. Having vexed wit]l the said attitude of her in-laws, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before WPS, Saroornagar. Thereafter, though several mediations took place, they did not choose to change their behaviour. She further alleged that her husband got frled several I cases against her. Despite of her several efforts to lead matrimonial life with her husband and in-laws, they never allowed her into their company. Therefore, she requested to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police have registered a case and upon investigation and recording the statements of as many witnesses as I to 12 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., laid charge .,1 I 3 sheet before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner herein/A- 1 are omnibus allegations. He further submits that A-2 and A-3 approached this Court by frling Crl.P.No.53O9 of 2O1O seeking quahsment of the proceedings against them and this Court vide order dated 3O.O9.2O24 allowed the said criminal petition. Since the same set of allegations are alleged against the petitioner herein as that of A- 2 and A-3, he seeks to allow tJle present petition. He would further submit that tJle marriage of the petitioner with the de facto complainant was performed on 26.O5.2O 1O, after a lapse of 8 years, the complaint was filed. That itself would suffice to say that bald allegations are made against the petitioner. No specific dates or events demanding additional dowry are narrated in the complaint. T}re de facto complarnant has not even stated the names of the persons found in her matrimonial house who abused her in filthy language. In tJle absence of any specific allegations, making the petitioner to undergo trial would amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, he seeks to allow the criminal petition.

6. learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complaint submits that the de facto complainant has undergone both mental 4 and physical harassment by her husband and in-laws. Despite of her several efforts, neither her husband nor in-laws allowed her to lead conjugal life. Even after the birth of the child, she was not allowed to join the company of her husband, over the demand of additional dowry. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed and witnesses have to be examined, therefore, at this stage, interference of this Court is not warranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition. 7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor taking the same stand as that of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that if this Court comes to the rescue of this petitioner, it would ultimately defeat the purport of investigation. Until and unless thorough trial is conducted, truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, at this stage, interference of this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, seeks dismissal of the petition.

8. Having heard rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for respective parties ald perusing the material placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against rhe petitioner herein as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that this Court vide order dated 3O.O9.2O24 quashed the proceedings against A-2 and A-3. Upon verifying the facts, this Court has come to the conclusion that t I 5 only bald and omnibus allegations are made against A-2 and A-3. Accordingly, quashed the proceedings a$ainst petitioners therein. Insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, serious allegations of mental harassment, demanding of additional dowry and not allowing the de facto complaint to lead matrimonial life are made. The nature of allegations made against the petitioner requires examination of witnesses during the trial. Only upon such examination, truth would come into light.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.l{eeharika Infrastructure M Ltd vs. The State of Maharashtrar held that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slou, to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of an olfence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. lO. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'ntn lOZt Supreme Court 1918 6 Neeharika's case (supra), this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein,

11. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous applications, Criminal Petition is dismissed. if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY' S TION OFFICER To,

1. The V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy Dist at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad

2. The Station House Ofiicer, Women P.S., Rachakonda 3. One CC to Sri T. Surya Satish, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. ALLU MIDHUN KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies VSM/kam P+ I t I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.2859 of 2021 * * ,.) I I I 1HE S r,i Bx il0v m[ 0fg olrcpr I !) -6+ -THE CRIMINAL PETITION DISMISSING (n- to t)