The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, through SHO, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Suryapet, Suryapet District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana. Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Reddimalla Beula, Wo. Sravan Kumar, Age. 25 Years, Caste. Mala, Occ. Velugupally (V), Thungathurthy (l,I) Now present at Bhashanaik Thanda, H/0. Gandhinaga(V), Cell No.8374908408. ...Respondents/Com plainant 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 call for the records relating to C.C. No.1133 of 2019, on the file of the Court of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class at Suryapet, Suryapet District. l l.A. NO: 1 OF 201') Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedrngs including appearance of the petitioner no- 2 to 7 rn connection with C.C.No.1133 of 2019 on the file of the Addl. Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class Suryapet, Suryapet District, pending disposal of criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Narsing Rao Voraparalu, Advocate for the Petitioners Sri M.Vivekananada Reddy, Assistant Dublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri R_ Giri Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. t The Court made tle following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7598 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1133 of 2O19, pending on the Iile of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 323 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistaat Rrblic Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. The de facto complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint against her husband/accused No. I and other in- laws/accused Nos.2 to 7. According to the complaint, the marriage of accused No. 1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 27.11.2OI5, and a dowry of Rs.1,5O,OOO/-, 2% tulas of gold ornaments, 2OO yards house plot arld house hold articles were given to accused No. 1. Therea-fter, accused No.1 and de facto cornpla)nant started living happily. Later, accused No.l 7 started suspecting the character of respondent No.2, and harassed hr:r physically and menta11y. Accused No.l also demanded f<rr additional dowry, for which accused Nos.2 to 4 supported accused No.1. Then, the de facto complainant and accused No. I went to Kukatpally, Hyderabad, and started living separzrtely, however, accused No. 1, suspected her and beat her. ' 4. On 06 04.2016, accused No.l quarreled with de facto complainant. beat her severely and kicked her with his legs on her abdornen. The same was informed to the mother of the de facto complainant. Her mother went to house of accused No.1 and took the de facto complainant to Gandhinagar Village. However, the attitude of accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not change and they continued to demald for dowry. The matter was placed belore the elders on 25.08.2017, and the accused attended the panchayat. During panchayat accused picked up a quarrel and the de facto complainant was beaten up.

5. The complaint was frled by t}re de facto complainant with the police on 2O.O8.2O77, i.e., 5 days after the said 3 panchayat. Police filed a charge-sheet against all the accused after concluding investigation.

6. Having gone through the record, the de facto complainant alieged that she and accused No. 1 were living separately. It was the husband, who harassed the de facto complainant, suspected her character, and also beat her on a reguiar basis. For the said reason, a palchayat was held. In the said panchayat, tine de facto complainant was beaten by the accused No.1. However, there is no specihc allegation as to how the accused Nos.2 to 7 harassed the de facto complainant, at any given point of time, in any manner whatsoever. Vague a-llegations are made against accused Nos.2 to 4 that, they supported accused No.1 and on the date of incident, accused Nos.5 to 7 were present, which is neither stated in the complaint, nor in 161 Cr.P.C statement of the de /acto complainant.

7. Admittedly, accused No.1 and the de facto compiainant stayed separately after marriage. The allegation that accused Nos.2 to 4 supported accused No.1, or that accused Nos.S to 7 were present on the date when panchayat was held, will not I I 4 suffice to prosecute accused Nos.2 to 7. Asking them to undergo thr' rigmarole of a criminal trial, on the basis of vague and bald allegations is unwarranted. In cases such as these, there is a tendency to rope in all the family members by making general and omnibus allegations.

8. ln Kahkash.o,n Ko'usor @ Sonarnt atud others u. State of Bihart, tl-re Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, unless there are specific ,rnd distinct allegations against the a<:cused, 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 ancl omnibus allegations

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta t. State of Jharkhand.z, lrc7d that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple. ' izozzy o scc slo 'z 1zoto1 t scc aat 5 10- Accordingly, the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C.No. 1133 of 2019, pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, are quashed. The proceedings against accused No. 1 shall go on.

11. The Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Miscelianeous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. t To, \ //TRUE COPY//

1. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Su 2. The Station House Officer. Suryapet Rural Police Sdi. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ Station, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

3. One CC to Sri. Narsing Rao Moraparaju, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Giri Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. YIR/kam W HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 t I l, ORDER CRLP.No.7598 of 2019 ltlt SLqt 2 B APr 2025 { o ( * PARTLY ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. @ \lr