The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. Basanaboina Pravallika, Wo. Raju, Aged 25 years, Occ Housewife, R/o Thorrur village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 to 7 ...RESPONDENTS 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 quash the Proceedings in S.C. No.2112023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Mahabubabad. (SC. Number and Court name is amended as per Court order Dt. 0611212024, vide lA.No. 212024, made in Crl.P.No. 1173912022) l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 28-12-2022 in Crl.P. No. 1173912022 dt. 25-01-2023 and further extended fll 26-6-2023 to until further orders. I.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in S.C.No. 2112023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad pending disposal of the main quash proceedings. (SC. Number and Court name is amended as per Court order Dt. 0611212024, vide IA.No. 212024. made in Crl.P No 1173912022) This Petition r;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Srt [Vl. V. Venu, Advocate for the Pet tioner. Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l and of Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advoc;ate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i-) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E;V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.11739 OF 2o22 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.21 of 2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant marriage was performed with accused No. 1 on

12.O2.2O2O. At the time of the marriage, the pa-rents of de-facto complainant parents gave an amount of Rs. 15,OO,0OOl-,25 tulas of gold and 1O tulas of silver and Rs.5,O0,00O/- worth house hold articles as dowr5r to accused No. 1. Therafter, they lead their marital life happily for a period of one year. Later, accused No.l, along with other accused persons, used to harass tl,:-.e de-facto complainant physically and mentally and also used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. As such, in the presence of elders and Mahila SocietSr, a panchayat was ' 2 EW,J Crl.P.l\o. I I T3g of 202 I held ald Iather of the de_facto complainant,s gave Rs.50,00,OOO/- ana also registered Ac.6 guntas of larrd in Sy.No.57 at Sarvinagar on the name of de-factocomplainant. Since then the accused persons started harassing her to register the szrid lald on the name of accused No. l, due to which, the d,e-facto complainant dialed to 100 and on 2gft March a.d grh April, given counseling at Sakhi centre Mahabubad and advised to stay good but accused No.1 along with other accused persons again started threatening the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, a case was registered uide Crime No.94 of 2022 before the Thormr police Station, Mahabubad ald aJter completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.21 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, for the offences punishabte under Sections 4gg_A, 3O7 ofthe IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of tlre Dp Act. 3. Heard Sri M.V.Venu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistalt public appearing for the respondent No. l_State and Prosecutor 3 EWJ Crl.P.Na11739 df2021 Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners "firstlg submitted that except making omnibus false allegations, no specihc allegations have been made against the petitioners by the de-facto complainant. He secondly submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences, tlre petitioners were implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He lastlg sutrmitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes arose between accused No'1 and the de-facto complainant. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Dara Lakshlrrri Naragana and others a. Statc of Telongana antd antoherl, and prayed theCourttoa]IowtheCriminalPetitionbyquashingthe proceedings against the petitioners'

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the | 2024t^a@M (SC) 1108 4 .t1 EW,J Crl.P.,Vo. I 1 739 oJ 202 1 petitioners, stating that the petitioners are conspired with accused No. 1 in harassing tlne de-facto complaina.nt. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that since the charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation, a detailed tria,l has to be conducted in order to elicit the true facts of the case and as such, interfr:rence of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. I{ence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the obserwations made by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra a. State of Uttar Prqd.eslp at paragraph No.21 held as under: "21. It would be releuant at this stage to take note of an apt obseruation of this Court recorded in the motter of G.V. Roo us. L.H.V. Prasad_ & Ors. reported_ in (2000) 3 SCC 693 uherein also in a matimonial d"ispute, this Court had held that the High Court should- hauZ quoshed the co.tnplaint arising out of a matrimoniat dispute uhereirt all familg members had been roped into the ' 1zorz1 rc s6 z+t 5 EWJ Crt.P.No.11739 bf2021 matrimonial litigation uhich was quash.ed and set aside. Their Lordships obseraed therein uith uhich ute entirely agree that:

12. ... Tlere ha,s been an outburst of matimoniaL ,. dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremong, main purpose of uhich is to enable the goung couple to settle doun in hfe -and liue peacefully- But little matimonial skirmish.es suddenlg entpt tlhich ofien assum.e senous proportions resulting in heinous crimes in uhich elders of th.e familg are also inuolued rtith the result that ttnse who could haue counselled and brought about rapproclrcment are rendered h.elpless on their being arraged as acansed. in tlrc ciminql case- Tlere are mang reqsons uhich need not be menttoned here for not encouraging matimoniql littgation so that the parties may ponder ouer their defaults and tenninate *e disputes amicablg bg mutual ogreement instead oJ fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and geors to conclude and in that process tLrc ' parties lose ttrcir "goung" daAs in chasing their cases in diJferent courts."

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon taking into consideration the aJoresaid decisions and the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. l State of Bihar and Others3, this Court is of the opinion that the contents of the F.I.R. reveal that general allegations are leveled. against the petitioners herein and no specilic *d ( t distinct allegations are made against them. In the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners herein it would 3 2022 l,awSrit (SC) 149 l 6 EW,J Crl.P.No.l1739 oJ 2O2t n be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial.

9. However, this Court, having respectable agreement with the views taken by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, is of the considered opinion that even if the triar is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be q.uashed.

10. Accordingiy, this Criminal petition is a_llowed and the proceedings zrgainst the petitioners herein in S.c.No.21 of 2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, are here by quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stald closed. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR ASSI$TANT \ To, ,TRUE COPY// 0t;, ON OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad 2. The Station House Officer, Thorrur police Station, Mahabubabad 3 r*g ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OLIT]

4. One CC to Sri lv! V Venu, Advocate tOpUCl 5, One CC to Sri Kiran palakurthi, Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies H'PSL l I HIGH COURT DATED: 0710312025 ORDER CRLP.No.11739 ot 2022 1 HE'iT4 r4: U ? E il\n 2il25 v c,. r \ ,. I \\::: ' ' ^c.,, - _-.-J-l ;-d * -'a:-'. t]- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,r{