Miza lqbal Golu and another v. Stre of Uttar Pradesh and anotherl

...RESPONDENT No. l/STATE Sri Puli Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Yellappa, Aged about- 60 years, Occ. Kirana Business, [?/o H No 6 99/1. tvladanapur Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ..RESPONDENT NO. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 proceedings in S.C. No. 183 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 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 S.C. No- 183 of 2022 on the file of the Court of lAdditional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal until the disposal of the present petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3788 OF 2024 Between:

1. Myadari Janardahan, S/o Late Myadari Yenganna, Aged about. 25 yearc, Occ. Business, R/o H No.7-9-15511, 2nd Flmr,Nallal:r nta Street, Gadwal. 2. Myadari Jayamma, W/o Late MyadariY-enganna, Age J about. 52 years, Occ. House-wife, fuo H No.7-9-155/1, Nallakunta Street, (; rdwal. 3 Smt, M Leelavathi, W/o M Shiva Prasad, Aged abotrt 33 years, Occ. House- wife, Rio H No. l-6, Srinivas Colony, Mahaboobr rgar Nagar Town and Mandal. ...PETITIONER:; ACCUSED No. 2, 3 & 4 AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, l= ir Hyderabad - 500066 Email. [email protected] r h Court of Telangana, ...RESF 2 Sri Puli Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Yellappa, Aged abou t Business, R/o H No. 6-99/1, Madanapur Village ar District. ONDENT No. 'lISTATE 60 years, Occ. Kirana J lvlandal, Wanaparthy ...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEF Petition under Seetion 482 ol Cr.P_C praying lhirl stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitit be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 183 o1 Court of lAdditional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwr qCTO COMPLAINANT In the circumstances r the High Court may 'O22 on the file of the l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying thzt rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitio ,. the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S_C No 183 of ZOZ2 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at G: lwal until the disposal of the present petition. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusir ; the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal. Petition and upon hearing the arc r ments of Sri Devara Samhitha, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri [Vl. Ramacha I tra Reddy. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 anl of Sri Govind Reddy Kontham, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3806 and 3788 ot 2024 COMMON ORDER: Criminal petition No.3806 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and Criminal petition No.37B8 ot 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.1B3 of 2O22 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Gadwal regrstered for the offences under sections 498-A, 302, 304-8 of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act.

2. Heard Ms.Devara Samhitha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Govind Reddy Kontham, barned counsel for the respondent No.2 and lVr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of 2d respondent was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 1 1 .09.2019 by giving 6 tulas of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.6 lakhs as dowry and agreed to give one plot. Later her daughter gave birth to a female child due to which all the accused picked up quarrel with her daughter and harassed her for additional dowry. Later again she gave birth to two female children, owing to -/ 2 which accused beat her with hands and throtfled lt, rr neck with hands with an intention to kill her, as a result s he became unconscious and when shifted to hospital she was Jeclared by the duty doctors as brought dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits ti rat accused Nos.2 and 3 were not present at the time of ir;rdent. The allegations against the petitioners are false and tr ) deceased died due to Epilepsy and the petitioner- infact imme j ately joined her in the hospital and he himself had informed abct t the health condition to the 2nd respondent_ There are no marks ri abuse on the body of the deceased as per the medical rep:1 Accused No.1 also ftled G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2022 seeking guardi? rship of the minor children. No specific allegations are made oui with regard to the offences alleged in charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed eliance on following citations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Crr rrt of lndia. 1. Miza lqbal @ Golu and another v. Stre of Uttar Pradesh and anotherl.

2. Saiarrlat Ali and another v. State of Bihal

3. Abhishek v. State of Madhya pradesh3 I {2022) 16 Supreme Coun Cases 697. 'Criminal Appeal No.6l2 of I993 decided on April 4. t995 3

4. Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryanaa He also relied on a citation held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Subburaj and another v. States. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the citations cited supra, quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and so also in the citation held by the Madras High Court. Hence, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and it is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners and the interference of this Court at this juncture IS not required. Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petitions

7. lt is pertinent to discuss with regard to seclion 304-8 of IPC and section 113-B of lndian Evidence Act. I 3O+B ot Death B Where the dealh of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown lhat soon before her death sfre r,yas subiected to cruetty or harassment bf her husband or any rclative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be ca ed "dowry death", aN such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death- ' 2023 Livetaw (SC)731:2O2) INSC 779 4 (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cascs 724 'crt.o.P.No. t t836 of2022 4 . O _Whoever commib dowry deaah shall be pr) lished with imp.risonment for a term which ihall not be less ftan s,t ii vears out which may extend to impdsonmentfor life. 1 of ln Ev. tion as to o nth -VlLeq 41r" Westion is wh&tE. a p€rsoa has co,r,nrktt C the ctowry death of a womaa and it is shown that soon oefore he death such Y-2.1! !." been subiected by such per*n to cruerry ,>, iirassment ror, or m,_connection with- any.demaad for dantry, ttc Court sha presume that such person had caused the dowry aeiin.

8. On perusal of the record and material, it is a5r1 arent as per 161 statement of LWI that all the petitioners wer . vsry rnu.6 present at the time of incident and they tried to es,) rpe from the scene of offence which is against the contention rrl the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.2 anc 3 were not present at the time of incident_ Further there were ;rl ;o marks on the throat found on the body of the deceased arr I there was demand of additional dowry by the petitioners while :l e deceased was alive and there were panchayats conducted ct ring the life time of the deceased. Even as per the provisions of r;, rction 3O4_B of lPC, admittedly the marriage of the dec.eased wiff he accused No.1 was performed in the year 2019 and the inciderrl occurred in the year 2021 , hence the probability of dowry deal cannot be ruled out. Even as per the -statement of witnesses of n, righbours. it is made out that there were leud. noises from fll r house of petitlone:'s on the date of incident Admittedly there a as cjemand of additional dowry by the petitioners prior to the j -,ath of the 5 deceased. Further some marks were found on the throat part of the deceased body as per the statements and even doctor opinion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner filed a GWOP for the sake of guardian ship of his children, which might be a probable defense mechanism adopted by the petitioner. ln the said circumstances and in view of the submissions, as there are disputed question of facts in the matter, which are triable issues in nature, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings and opines that no interference is required at this stage' I Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SDi- N. SR DEPUTY REGIS IHARI TRAR 1 ,,TRUE COPY SECTPN OFFICER To, wal- t Officer' District.

1. The I Add itional Dis tr'tct and Sesston s Judge at udiciat First Class Magistrate a 2. The Add itionaIJ 3. The Station House 4 Two 5. Ohe 6. One 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' Hvderabad CC to CC to CD CoPies ?tr Samhitha' Advo Redd y Kontham' IOUTI Sri Devara Sri Govtno cate [O Gadwal Town Police Station, High Court for Pucl Advoca te [O PUCI VH/SA Gadwal Jogulamba the State of Telangana couRr ryrcH DATED: 0911012025 t COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.3S06 & 3788 ot 2024 I' l, ,'!A r. \-. .. ) [,irl [Jg l /,..\

1. :t DISMISSING BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS I t qF --.r-1't llIt) tz) - ,l i