Criminal Petition No. 4920 of 2020 · The High Court · 2025

'1. Statg of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telagnana

2. Smt Bestha Srujana-@ Mala Srujana, Wo. Rama Chanclra pankaj, aged 32 ye_arjir O99: Branch Mana-ger working in DCCB Bank Edulla Bayya'rarir, Caste SC R/o. H No- 844-53, Venugopal Nagar- 2 khanapr.rram Havdti of Khammam Town and District - ...RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTIO COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 ot 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 cc No. 179 of 2o2o on the file of court of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Special Mobile court at Kharnmam. t. 2 0 Petition under section 492 of cr.p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me.norandum of Grounds of crimin;r pLtition, tre Hrgr,-court mrv be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/ accused no. 1 to 4 and 7 in CC No. 179 of 2020 on the file of court of the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special lVobile Court at Khammam, pending disposal of the above criminal petition, and pass These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Kowturu Pavan Kuamar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t:/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.492O and 6O3_1_AE 2920 COMMON ORDER : Criminal Petition No.492O of 2O2O is filecl by A5 & A6 and Criminal Petition No.6033 of 2O2O is filed by A1 to A,4 & A7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No. 179 of 2O2O, on the file of court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Nlobile Court at Khammam, registered for the offences undt:r Sections 498-A, an Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Since the issue involved in these criminal petitions is one and the szune and the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A7 in C.C.No.L79 of 2O2O, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

3. Brief facts of the case a_re that on 22.O2.2O2O at around 2l:OO hours the complainarfi/L.W. 1, Smt. Bestha Srujana @ Mala Srujana, wife of Bestha Rama Ghqndra Pankq[ and resident of Venug.pal Nagar-2,1 Pagc2ofll Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Town and District, submitted a written complaint in Telugu at the Women Police Station, Khammam. She stated that her parents have two daughters and she the elder. After completing her studies, her parents arranged her betrothal with Bestha Rama Chandra Pankaj on

09.12.2012. At the time of the engagement, her parents paid Rs.2.0o lakhs in cash to A1 (her husband) in the presence of Maddela Sanjeeva Rao, Kamalla Kanakaratnam, and chilakabathina Kanakaiah at her parents' residence in Khammam.

4. The marriage was solemnized on O6.O2-2OL3 at Maripeda Bungalow following Christian traditions. At the time of the marriage, an additional dowry comprising Rs. 2.OO lakhs in cash, one thula gold chain, 1o tulas of gold, 1O tulas of silver, and household articles worth Rs. 2 lakhs was given to A1, in the presence of relatives including Padma Rekha, Bestha Adam and his wife, Page 3 of ll Bestha Venkanna and his wife, Gummadi Shanthan and his rvife, Prarzachana (A1's sister), and others

5. After rnarriage, A1 was employed at Bcllampaili. The complainant began her marital life and stayed with her husban<I and in-laws. They lived happily for about one and a tralf years. However, from the beginning, A1 and A2 (her mother-in-law) allegedly harassed her mentally and physically, commenting negatively on her appearancer, stating she was not beautiful, was short, and had bzrd lips and hair. A2 also remarked that A 1 could have married someone better. Despite the complainant securing a job at DCCB, the in-laws showed no interest or support.

6. When the complainant disclosed her pregnancy, A1 allegedly disowned responsibility. on Lg.06.2oL4, she gave birth to a baby girl, but instead of support, A1 and his family insulted her for delivering a female child. A1 continuecl to r,aris-i* her for additional dowry and physically assaulted her at her parental home. Following Page 4 of lI a panchayat involving elders, including the Khammam Corporator, A 1 lived with the complainant for a while but later resumed the harassment. Even upon the death of the complainant's father, Al did not attend the funeral rites. In light of the continuous mental and physical harassment and demands for additional dowry, the complainant requested that legal action be initiated against the accused. 7 . Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, L.W.7 /Inspector of Police, Women P-S-Khamm€un registered. a case in Cr.No .22 of 2O2O under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up the investigation

8. After completion of investigation, L-W -7 filed charge sheet against the petitioners/Al to A7 vide C.C.No. 179 of 2O2O on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Khammarl i I I I i ! , I I ; i I i I l l Page5ofll

9. Learned counsel for the petiticners sublnits that petitiorrers 1 and 2 (Al anC A2i are alleged to have denranded adciiiional dor,vry, 'w,hich is stat.r:d to have been paid in thc presence of petitioners/A3 to A7 at the time of the marriage, i.e., on 06.O2.2OL3. I-le submits that apart lrorn this aiiegation, there are no specific accusations that petitioners/A3 to A7 either mentally or physicaiiy irarassed the de facto ccmplainant or instigated A 1 and A2 to do so. He further subrnits that the relationship of petitioners/A5 and 4.6 with A1 has neither been explained in the cornplaint nor properiy investigatecl by the respondent/poiice, and the same has alsc not ber:n m.entioned in the charge sheet.

10. Learriecl counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Biharr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct I QO22l6 Supreme Court Cases 599 Page 6 of ll }.* allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations I 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand2 wherein it was held that the Courts have to scrutinize tk:.e allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

12. The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments categorically held that in the absence of specific allegations and corroborative evidence, making bald allegations against the relatives of the husband, petitioners/A3 to A7, subjecting them to tribulations of trial, amount to abuse of process of law and submits \ \-\ 'z (2O 10) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 --- :;:7'#.7:1.i# ' .:.'ii#' Page 7 of 1l that the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the de facto complainant subrnits that the dowry was paid in the presence of petitioners 5 and 6 (AS and A.6). Therefore, being full.v aware that giving or taking dowry is prohibited uncier laur, they knou,inglv rt,itnessed the act of dowrv being given to A I and A.2 try the parents of the de facto complainant. This, he contends, constitutes an act of harassrnent, and hence, they cannot plead ignorance or claim innocence regarding thre incident. He further submits that, since the trial Court is already seized of the matter, interference by this Court ert this stage is unwarranted, and accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

14. Adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit respondent/police have investigated the matter thoroughl-v and collected necessary evidence and *-t \ t I , t I i I I I I I i I : :, I , PageSofll t recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and laid charge sheet. He submits that the truth or otherwise of the s€une can be elicited only after full- fledged trial by the trial Court.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioners/A3 to A7. Except the statement that they were present-along with others-at the time of the alleged payment of dowry on the demand made by A 1 and A2, ro further details have been provided. Notably, there is no mention of the specific time or place when and where the alleged dowry amount was paid by the parents of the de facto complainant. L6. Furthermore, the role of petitioners/A3 to A7 is not specifically mentioned either in the complaint or in ItI ! I , I i : Page9ofll the charge sheet filed by the respondentlpolice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in several aut horitative judgments, has categorically held that there must be specific allegations against the relatives of the husband i in cases of dowry harassment, and in the absence of such particulars, making vague and generalised allegations--bold and bald in nature-cannot be sustained. Subjecting the petitioners/A3 to A7 to the rigours of a criminal trial based on such omnibus allegations n ould amount to an abuse of the process of

17. In the light of above discussion, the proceedings against the petitioners 43 to A7 in C.C No. 179 of 2O2O, on the file of court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Khamm€un are hereby quashed. However, the petitioners/A 1 and A2 shall face trial before the trial Court. Page 10 ofll \\.

18. In the result, Criminal Petition No.4920 of 2020 is allowed and Criminal Petition No.6O33 of 2O2O is allowed in part. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- I , , a //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, w

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam 2. One CC to SRl. G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE (OPUC) 4. One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT, HYD IOUCTI 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED i24lAl 12025 t o(. .-! l!- i:-r.; o i^l"r ._,. ' ORDER CRLP.Nos.4920 & 6033 2020 ,.i . ii I ri ltri 2i]i5 f.-, .:'- * '(\ ALLOWII{G THE CRLP 4920 & PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP 6033 OF 2O2O * $r