The High Court · 2025

2. Janagam Swapna, Wo Sri Ravi, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife, R./o H.No. 16-1-163, Shivaji Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam - 505209, Karimnagar. 3- Chelikani Kanakamma, Wo Late Lingaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No. 1-1-162, Shivaji Nagar, Ramagundam - 505208, Kairmnagar. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 3 TO 5 AND

1. The State of Telangana Through Ramadugu Police Station, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Gunjapadugu Swathi, W/o Kranthi, Aged about 3II years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.84-228, Ganesh Nagar, Karimnagar. ...RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of C!.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleaSed to call-forthe records reHing to C.C.No.773 of 2O2O pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar and quash the same in so far as against the petitioners herein. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.773 of 2020 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar including appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusirg the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearinly the arguments of Sri V.V. Ramana, Advocate for the Petitioners Sri E.Gane:sh, Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 ilnd none appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIIVtrNAL PETITION No.5267 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 in C.C.No.773 of 2O2O on the frle of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), at Karimnagar (for short, 'the trial Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 1O9 of I.P.C. and pass sr.ch other order or orders

2. Heard Mr.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, . Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State. Despite notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.O2.2O2O at 17:3O trours, respondent No.2 hled a complaint before the Station Flouse Offrcer concerned stating that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 25.O3.2O1O; that they were blessed with a son and daughter during their wedlock; that all of them lived at Ramagundam for quite some time and later, accused No.1 shifted the fa4i[ from Ramagundam to Karimnagar town for livelihood; 2 that accused No. I was a Barber and kept tht: faLrnily at Ganesh Nagar; that upon after shifting the family, he failed to come home; t.hat respondent No.2 suspected a:cuLsed No.l and enquired about him at his work place; thzrt cn Oa.O2.2O2O, respondent No.2 came to know that accused No.l married accused No.2 and living with her illegally and t.1at accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the brother, sister and mother rtf accused No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 gathered the peogrle in that locality, convenecl a panchayath and requested accused No.2 to leave accused No.I for the sake of her children dut: to which, alt the accused threatened her with dire consequencer;. I.t is pertinent to note that respondent-Police have clearge sheer.ed accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section,s 494 and 506 of I.P.C. and petitioners/ accused Nos.3 to S jbr the offences punishable under Sections 1O9 and 506 of I.F,C. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered.

4. karned counsel for the petitioners srubmits that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever rea<:h l_o a conclusion that there is suflicient ground to proceed again st them. He states that the respondent-Police failed to conduct the investigation in a J proper manner and laid charge sheet against the petitioners, which is abuse of process of law. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. lcarned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the matter requires [o be tried and only upon conducting a full-fledged trial, the truth comes to light. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and relying on the decision passed by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LaU, this Court is of the opinion that the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of the offence against the accused for the offence under Section 5O6 of I.P.C.. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to quash tl.e proceedings in so far as petitioners/ accused Nos.3 to 5 are concerned in C.C.No.773 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Sp'ecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), at Karimnagar for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. However, the impugned proceedings shall go on for the offence under Section 1O9 of I.P.C. I 1992 Supp (l) Supreme Court Cases 335 4 7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partll, allowed. n Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sh:J1 stand closed. SD/- L.ViJAYA LAXMI AS;ISSTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER -.\ To,

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar 2. The Station House Officer, Ramadugu police Statio r, K.arimnagarl 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd:ralmd.[OU-T] 4. One CC to Sri V.V. Ramana, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies M Sr/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:04/0812025 ORDER CRLP.No.5267 ot 2O21 I I Srp ?e?5 !' ,,) \.., * \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWEI] 6