Vanjari Gangamani, Wo v. Shankar, aged about

...RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High co;rt ;ly oe pleased to grant interim stay.of all further proceedinls in c.c. No. 1g36 of 2022, dated 3011112022, on the fire of the court of t r naor. Judiciar First crass lvlagistrate, at Nizamabad, including arrest of petitioner herein. "' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri c Raja sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, rearned Assistant Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1, and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I H()NOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPA,L ']RIMINAL PETITION No.5635 of 2023 ORDER: Ttre l.,l-esent criminal petition is fileC )l' the petitior-Ler / zrr:cused under Section 482 of Cr.I).C. set"L:ing to quash the proceedings in CC No.1836 c'f 2Oil,2 dated

26.O4.20i'.1 on the file of the learned I Additiorral .hrdicial First Class l4agistrate at Nizamabad.

2. H,:arcl C.Rajashekar Reddy, learned courLsel f:r the petitiolrer and Sri E.Galesh, learned Assistant Public ProsectLtc.r 1or the respondent No.1/State. ThouglL notice was servt cl ln the respondent No.2, none allperrrei 'rn her behalf.

3. C[] N,:. iB36 of 2022, on the file of the trial Corrrt, is a case reg^;is,1ered basing on the complaint lnil(le by respon(le1t No.2 in Crime No.63 of 2O22, dated 23. O.2022 on the file ,rf WPS, Nizamabad for the offer-lce pur tishable under llecti rn 498-4 IPC. The main allegation is .tLat the petitior er'. being the husband of the 2"a -esF,ondent, harassed hr,r- mentally and physically and ever h.e clid not ( I l I I I l: 2 provide her treatment during her ill-health and necked her out of the house. During the course of investigation, the police examined 10 witnesses and collected documents and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-4 IpC. The trial Court, upon taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, proceeded further.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a false case is foisted against the petitioner with ulterior motives and to extract money, the marriage of the petitioner with the 2"d respondent was a second marriage ald was performed upon receipt of Rs.5,0O,OO0/ and g tulas of gold from the petitioner by the family members of the 2"a respondent, the 2"d respondent does not have interest on the petitioner and she had an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law and eloped with him, the petitioner is an old aged person ald a septuagenarian with only one hand from his childhood and hence, the question of his harassing ti:-e )na respondent does not arise. Further, the petitioner is an innocent, if the allegations are taken at 1 I ': ja i' ,l 3 their fzLclr value and accepted in their entir':ty i o not constitlrtr ) a ny offence much less the aliegecl ofl'ence basic ingredir:nts of Section 498-A IPC are miss:ng in the allegati rr s evelled against the petitioner' Th us s lating, the iearned counsel for the petitioner seeks tc q.u ash the impugrLerl proceedings. The learned co'tn sel ' c r the petitiorLe:' r'c lied upon the decisions of the H'ln'b'le S'u preme Court jn Kzthkashan Kausar (@ Sonam Vs. The titate of Biharl t:ontending that general and orrLnibus clo not warrant prosecution against the petitioner.

5. C,n the other hald, learned Assistant Public Prosecrrt,rt' vehemently opposed the presellt':r-iminal petition m ainly contending that upon examin irrg the witnesr;es and collecting the documents durin5l th I course of inr.r:sr isa tion, the poiice laid charge-sheet aga irrst the petitiol-re r f nding prima-facie case against him an'l hence, the cr,rlpab ilitv or otherwise of the petition er. rvithout subjectirrg him face the test of trial, cannot be <lecided either sidr: at the threshold' Stating thus, the learned \ 2022 Livt.l,ttr' (SC) 14I 4 Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to dismiss the present criminal petition.

6. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Assistalt public prosecutor ald perused the material on record. The record shows that charge-sheet is already fited before the trial Court by examining around 10 witnesses and collecting documents and the trial Court, upon considering the material filed along with the charge-sheet, taken cognizalce of the offence alleged against the accused and issued summons to the witiresses. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a discharge petition before the trial Court by canvassing the grounds urged in this petitioner. The tria_l Court, upon filing of such application, shall dispose of the same without having been influenced by the findings made in the present criminal petition. However, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court in connection with CC No.1g36 of 2022 is dispensed with unless and until the same is required by the trial Court, failing which, the relief of 5 dispens,ing \vith his presence before the trial Court, g:anted now, n.r11 au tomatically stand vacated. 7 . W itl'r Ie above observations, the present r ;riminal petitior irt d ,sposed of. B. Miscerllar-reous applications, if any, stand close d //TRUE COPY// SD/-,A,V.S. PRASAD .. DEPUT/ REGISTRAR $ECiTION OFFICER The lAddl JuCicial First Class f\4agistrate, at Nizamabari 2 House Officer, WpS Nizamabad, police Stat c r, Nizamabad

2. The Statio r District. One CC :o S.i C Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OpLtC] Two CCr; 1o F,ublic prosecutor, High Court for the state o. Telangana at Hyderaberd. [O.JT] Two CD ()ocir:; 4

5. To 1 Swt/gh $ I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 21lct3l2021 ORDER CRLP.No.56115 of 2023 -:=:= - -1a= ,-t rl' l)f i o\ (- o.. + ,'J \\r K 18 ItlN iu5 c,I Dr.' \:: (:1'1'' CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF @t?.*w