High Court · 2025

Chinthakayala Srivani altas Jhansi' Wo Saidulu.Aged about 32 years' Caste' 'iiL-? u ni - 1-2' Ravulapenta' vadav. occ Private ".;i;i; kli,irrlprr"rvillage Nalgonda District Chinthakayala Saidulu. S/o Mallaiah Aged about 40 years Caste yadav' Occ Village Nalgonda Agriculture, R/o H.no' - .r i""t[;'i;p"";ia' District 'Kalvalairalem ...Petitioners / Accused Nos'7 & AB AND l,TheStateofT.S',throughPublicProsecutor'HighcourtofTelangana. "'Respondents / ComPlainant

2. Smt. Jetti Manasa, Wo Jetti Saikiran'.Aged ab-out 23 vears' Occ' House Wife. R/o Savarkar #g*;fffii;;ni"'io*n Present'at Kokkireni village' Munagala Mandal' ...Respondent / De-facto complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to quash the C C No 810 of 2022 registered for the offences U/s' 498-A, IPC and 3 and 4 section of D'P Act pending on the file of The Honble Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court at Kodadas against the petitioner/Accused nos T and 8 I.A. No: :l oF 2024 petition under Se stated n the Memor;rnd;:JT ;:,:::]:; ::::ff "lH,:",iff ffi :ffi; be preased to stay ;r, further proceedings in the c.c No.g10 0f 2022 for rhe offences U/s. 49g_A, lpC 3 and 4 section of D.p. Act pending on the file of the Hon'bre speciar Judiciar First-crass ,vragistrate court at Kodadas against the petitioners/Accused nos' 7 and g pending disposar of above criminar petition. This petition comir hearrng upon perusing the Memorandum of crounds of criminar ,,";:^":-:: srika nth, Advocate r,, ;J ;::,::::.':1'j'ir:"^T:ffi':;J :' ;::l# (TG/AP) on behalf ol the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2, norre appeared on her beharf. The Court made the following Order:_ through notice served upon THE HONOURABLE SMT . JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'15696 ot2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos T and 8 in C.C.No'81O of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Kodad' registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the IndianPenalCode,l36o(forshort.IPCJandSections3and4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act' 1961 (for short'DP Actl' The brief facts of the case' as per the prosecution' are 2. that on 25.O7.2022, respondent No 2/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police at Munagala Village' Suryapet District, stating that her marriage with accused No'1 took place on 13 10'2018' At the time of marriage' her parents allegedly gave one acre of land' Rs'SO'OOO in cash' and 12 thulas of gold to Accused No'l' After marriage' she joined her husband in Hyderabad tt is alleged that accused No. 1 neglected and harassed her physically and mentally' While residing together in Hyderabad' she conceived and gave - _ 2 SI(S,J Crl.P.No. 15696 of 2024 birth to a baby boy, who is now about 4 years old. Respondent No.2 further alleged that her husb:rnd and other accused dentanded additional dowry, physicallv assaulted her, and refused to alow her to stay with them unless she fulrrlled their demanris.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the policc registered a case in Crinre No. 132 of 2022 tor the offences punishable under Sections 49g-A of IpC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dp Act, and after contpletion of investigation, they hled charge sheet. uide C.C.No.8 70 of 2022, before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad the presenl criminal petition petitioners/ accused Nos.7 and g to against them. quash the proceedings Aggrievcd thcreby, filed by IS

4. Heard Sri Dogiparthi Srikanth, learned counsel appearlng on behalf of the petitioners as u,ell as Sri M. Vivel<ananda Reddy, Iearned Assistant public Prosecutor apJrearing on behalf of respondent No.1_state. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf. 3 sl{s'J crr.P.No.15696 of 2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 5. petitioners was wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled agalnst them' pima focie' do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint' He further submitted that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No l and respondent No 2' Police lrledthechargesheetwithoutverifyingthematterandthere are no specihc allegations against the petitioners except stating that they supported accused No'l Therefore' he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against petitioners.

6. Per contro' Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are ailegations against the petitioners' Therefore' the allegations leveled against the petitioners require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the Petition' 7 . In the light of the submissions made bY both the a perusal of the material available on learned counsel and record, it appears that the allegations leveled against them are that they harassed respondent No 2 and demanded additional k- 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.15696 of 2024 dowry' It is; specificalry contended by the learned counsel for the petiLioners is that the petitioners are not residing with accused No l and respondent No.2 and rurther contended that except supporting accused No.r, they never rnterferecl with the matrimonial disputes between them_

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgmcnt of the Honble Supr,:me Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another r , wherein in paragraph No.35, ir. is held as under: "35. In one of the recent pronouncemcn[s of this Court in Mahmoocl Ali and Ors vs. St;1te of Uttar pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC Orline SC g5O, authored by one ol us (.r.B Pa-diwala, j.), the legal principle applicable ap|opos Section 4g2 of the Cr.p.C was exe mined. Therein, it was observed that wh:n an accused comes before the High Corrrt, invoking either the inherent porer un(ler Section 482 Cr_p.c or the extraordinan. jurjsdiction under Article 226 ot Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proireedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestl-v frivolous or vexatious or instituted \!ith the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in rCriminal Appeal No. 2329 ot 2024 5 SKS,J c,rl-P .No'15696 of 2024 ""u such circumstances' the HiSh Court owes a into the FIR with care and a little Ur* a -o." .to"aty lt \^'as further observed that it wili not be enough for the Court to took into the averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purpose o[ ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as' in frivolous or vexatious proceedings' the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending .ia.rl-"t"rr""" emerging from the record o[ the case over and above the averments and' i[ need be, with due care and circumspection' to try and read between the tines " g . As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou rt in Achin Gupta (cited supra) ' the averments in the complaint has to disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences ln the present case, except omnibus allegations' there are no other speciflc allegations against the petitioners' Further' the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti GuPta vs' State of Jharkhand2' has observed that the family members, who are residing away lrom accused No.1, cannot be roped into the case' In the present case' the are that she instigated against the Petitloners I to demand additional dowry and also harassed ExcePt these bald allegatlons' accused No allegatrons her PhYsicallY and mentaliY '(zoto) I scc ooz 6 ".r.r-r*"., "UrU ral[]j against the are not tt"; [n ""t'o"t"' Jing along with aiiegations there are no specific 'iew thereof as the accuse<r No. i, the urr.,ott"'o"ts vague. Therefore, ,nr,*t'o'" even if t^e kiar i" .on.rs that since there are ,"'"to' petitioners, quashed. the proceec to be against her are court is or tr'" "onsioonsidered vie'r' that no purpose would other specific allegarion Iinss asainst *J ;;.'" served and asainst the liable to be t O. Acco rdingly, thr against ue proceeding.; the fi,e of t;re rearned class, Kodacl, are hereb criminal petition is ai re petitioners '" "'"'"'u' itional Judici., ,;-J" Y guashecl. ed and the ':r':r:": Miscellzmeous crosed. tions' if any pending, sha, arso stand //TRUE COPYII sd/-M.NA G AMANI TA NT RE GI STRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2

3. YC/gh \? The Additional Judi,:ial First The Station House r)fficer Munagala p.S. Two C Cs to the Public Prosecutor Hyde [OUI] Class Magistrate at Kodad , Suryapet District

4. One CC to Sri Dogip,rrthi S 5 Two CD Copies rikanth, Advocate [OpUC] High Court for the State of Tetangana. HIGH COURT DATED:23 t}6t2}2s I ORDER CRLP.No.15696 of 2024 B 7 1e sEP mF .-) J \' \" \.*..*\ ,\ "-. \ ri:- ( [r ,/3 ALLOWTNG THE Q$Rp c\zL,p 4() .ednL \c4- ffi6r