Telangana High Court
Kalwagadda Srikanth Goud vs The State Of Telangana, on 14 September, 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11636 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2637 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 417, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard Sri V.Mallikarjun Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2022, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner herein and other accused alleging that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 28.10.2020 at APR Garden, Karmanghat in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, on demand of petitioner and his family members, the parents of respondent No.2 gave dowry of Rs.8,00,000/-, 40 tulas of gold and 80 tulas of silver 2 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 and that after marriage, she joined her marital house. Thereafter, the petitioner intentionally avoided first night and he has not physically met her. Furthermore, it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and his family members used to harass her mentally and physically; that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. It is also alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2 is having life threat from the petitioner and his family. Basing on the said complaint, a case in FIR No.62 of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, Sarrornagar Women Police Station, Rachakonda, was registered against the petitioner and other accused. The police, after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2637 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime and he has not committed the offence as alleged by respondent No.2. It is further contended that respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by suppressing the compromise agreement entered into between them and to extract money from the petitioner; that the marriage of respondent No.2 and the petitioner was performed on 28.10.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs and 3 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 there was no exchange of dowry; that after marriage, respondent No.2 stayed with the petitioner for a couple of days and later left to her parent's house without any reason; the petitioner suffered with Corona Virus and was admitted in the hospital, at that time, the father of the petitioner also suffered Corona Virus, as such, other accused requested the father of respondent No.2 to look after the petitioner in the Hospital; that after one week, the father of respondent No.2 disclosed that he had spent an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- towards the treatment of the petitioner. Further, respondent No.2 expressed her intention that she is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner, for which, an agreement dated 04.07.2021 has been entered between the parties in the presence of elders to dissolve their marriage and also decided to exchange the presentations and to return the money, which was spent towards the medical expenses of the petitioner; that the medical expenses were returned and marriage expenses have to be returned on the date of obtaining of divorce. It is also contended that in contravention to the agreement dated 04.07.2021, respondent No.2 filed F.C.O.P.No.966 of 2021 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy, for divorce alleging that the petitioner is impotent and the Advocate for petitioner sought time for filing a petition to send the petitioner for potency test, but the said 4 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 F.C.O.P. was withdrawn by respondent No.2 without assigning any reason. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that it is the matter of fact to be decided by way of trial by the trial Court and that the police, after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner, wherein specific allegations are leveled against him. Hence, it is not a fit case to be quashed. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. On perusal of charge sheet and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that specific allegations are leveled against the petitioner. Though it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an MOU dated 04.07.2021 entered into between the parties as to the exchange of ornaments and payment of medical expenses to the father of respondent No.2 and also the marriage expenses, the said MOU cannot be looked into at this stage. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a matter of fact to be decided by way of trial by the Court below and the said MOU cannot be considered at this juncture. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to be quashed. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to 5 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 submit his oral and documentary evidence before the Court below to prove his innocence.
7. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 14.09.2023 TMK 6 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 7 GAC, J Crlp_11636_2022 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11636 OF 2022 Date: 14.09.2023 TMK