The High Court · 2025

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 Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.91 of 2019, on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial. l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner, in P.R.C.No.91 of 2019, on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusittg the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Sanjeev Reddy Gillela, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VEIYU(X)PAL CRIDIINAL PETITION lto.3891 of 2O2l ORDER: ./ The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.9l of 2019, on the lile of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagitial. Subsequently, as per order in IA No.l of 2025, dated Oa.O7.2O25, certain amendments were allowed replacing "PRC No.20 of 2022, on the lile of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cumJunior Civil Judge at Dharmapuri" in the place of "PRC No.9l of 2019, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagitial'.

2. Heard Sri Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Reddy Gillela, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. PRC No.91 of 2019, on the file of the trial Court, was registered basing on the complaint dated LO.O2.2O 19 lodged by the 2ua respondent in FIR No.33 of 2019, dated lO.O2.2Ol9 of PS, Dharmapuri, Jagitial District against the petitioner and his other family members the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC alleging that due to untold harassment meted out by the accused his sister-in-law (wifet sister) viz. Mohammad Thalath Jahan deceased, who is the wife of the ,I Page 2 of5 petitioner herein, committed suicide. 2nd respondent fur'ther alleged that the husband and other family members of the deceased abused her stating that she cannot give birth to children and that she did not bring any money from her parental house. The police, upon registration of FIR, proceeded with the investigation, examined LWs.l to 18, collected evidence and laid charge-sheet. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences with which the accused are charge-sheeted, assigned PRC No.9 | of 2Ol9 and proceeded with.

4. While the proceedings before the trial Court are pending; the petitioner liled the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him in PRC No.91 of 2019 mainly contending that the entire evidence on record and the recitals of charge-sheet do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offences against the petitioner, his marriage with the deceased was performed 20 years back and for all these days they lived happily and separately away from his other family members without any dispute, nothing is on record to connect the petitioner with the death of the deceased, mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable, a mere reprimand or a word in a ht o[ anger will not earn the status of abetment, the petitioner was not in the house at the time of committing suicide by the deceased and that continuation of criminal proceedings i I i I i i i I I i .i Page 3 of5 against the petitioner, in the above factual matrix, is nothing but abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the families of the accused and tl..e complain'ant are Muslims and speak in Urdu language and in view of the same the contention of the 2'd respondent that his mother-in-law stated him in Telugu language that her daughter i.e. the deceased informed her over phone that she was assaulted by the family members of her husband and hence, she intended to go elsewhere and end her life cannot be believed ;rt any stretch of imagination. He further submits that since the allegations have no force, the respondent/police have not charge-sheete<l accused Nos.2 to

4. He further submits that challenging the action of the respondent police in not arraying the accused Nos.2 to 4 in t.l-re charge-sheet as accused, the 2'd respondent filed protest petition in Crl.MP No.24 of 2023 in PRC No.20 of 2022 before the trial Court and the trial Court, as per order dated L6.O5.2O25, allowed the said application and took cognizance for the offences with which the accused including the accused Nos.2 to 4 are charge-sheeted. Assailing the same, the accused Nos.2 to 4 preferred Criminal Petition No.6946 of 2025 before this Court mainly contending that the Sessions Court alone can take cognizance under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that this Court, finding prima-face strong case, suspended the impugned order dated L3.O6.2O25 till next date of hearing. Page 4 of5 t-

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without there being any ingredient or strong basis for the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, continuation of proceedings against him and subjecting him to tribulations of trial is nothing but abuse of process of law. Stating thus, he seeks the indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioner.

7. On tlle other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemenfly opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending that upon finding prima-facie material against the petitioner the trial Court took cognizance against the accused, including the petitioner and hence, declaring the petitioner without testing the allegations levelled against him on the touchstone of the trial, will not meet the ends of justice and hence, the present criminal petition may be dismissed,

8. Having heard the rival contentions advanced on either side and pemsing the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere with the impugned proceedings since, they are pending since long time and prima-facie allegations are levelled agaiyrsl the petitioner and the same required the test of full-fledged trial and without letting the petitioner to face trial, he cannot be declared either side and his case requires full-fledged trial. However, as sought by learned counsel for the petitioner the appearance of the petitioner i I I t I i t t I I I t t I I ! I T I i I i I I I : Page 5 of5 before the trial Court in connection with PRC No.2O of 2022, on the frle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Junior Civil Judge at Dharmapuri is dispensed herewith until and unless the same is required by the said Court. The petitioner shall appear either in person or through his advocate whenever the trial Court seeks his presence. The petitioner shall file an aflidavit to this effect into the trial Court. Any deviation urill amount to automatic cancellation of the relief granted herein in favour of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedies as available under law including liling discharge petition before the trial Court. Upon such filing of discharge petition by the petitioner, the trial Court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and on its own merits qdthout being influenced by this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months thereon.

9. With the above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of. The interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. ,,TRUE COPY// SD/. K.BHAVANI SI ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class' Jagtial 2. The Station House fficer, Dharmapuri Police Station, Jagtial 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

4. One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Sanieev Reddy Gillela, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies \ To, I I I I i i t I I I I I I I i fi, ABK/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3891 ol2O21 \ t :i1.1r..sra r6: ( ..) .J B:I ELT,M t i:l *

6.( C) DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION : i a I j { I J i I I Tt t I II l1 $- LD