Telangana High Court
Manimaddi Ramesh, Warangal 4 Othrs., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr., on 2 November, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13432 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.156 of 2012 on the file of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn the petition against petitioners No.1 to 3 and the same was allowed as per the orders dated 19.11.2013. As such, the present petition is continuing only against A4 and A5.
2. As per the charge sheet, the marriage of A1 was settled with the daughter of the de facto complainant, which was arranged by the elders. On the demand of A1 to A5, the parents of the bride agreed to give Rs.10,00,000/- net cash, 6-tulas of gold and a motor cycle. But, at the time of engagement on 17.03.2012, A1 to A5 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- extra to the agreed dowry amount and insisted to pay on that day but the parents of the bride stated that they would pay the entire agreed amount at the time of marriage. A1 to A5 left the place saying that they were having offers agreeing to give dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and cancelled the marriage. Though the parents of the bride and the elders visited the house of A1 at Madikonda and agreed to give extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, A1 to A5 expressed their disinterest to get the marriage of A1 with the daughter of the de facto complainant. As such, the de facto complainant lodged the report, Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P. No.13432 of 2013 which was registered against A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation charge sheet was filed by the police against them for the above offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belonged to Vaddera caste, which would come under Backward Class community, whereas the family of the de facto complainant belonged to Yerukala caste, which would come under Scheduled Caste community. The de facto complainant's family by suppressing their caste made the proposal of marriage of their daughter with the petitioner No.1 saying that they belonged to Vaddera community. The petitioners on visiting the bride's residence at ST colony, Ramagundam, suspected their caste, as all the relatives of the complainant belong to Yerukala caste, they kept the proposal pending and came back. After knowing about the mischief and the cheating attitude of the de facto complainant's family, they informed them that they were not proceeding further with the marriage proposal. The petitioners never demanded any dowry. In fact, it was the petitioners, who lost their reputation in their community and prayed to quash the proceedings against A4 and A5.
Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P. No.13432 of 2013
5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the witnesses stated the names of A4 and A5 also in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as such the trial should be continued against them.
6. Perused the record. The complaint would disclose the names of the petitioners - A4 and A5. As per the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, the statements of the witnesses also would disclose their names. The police filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offences against all the accused. As the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners would come out only after full-fledged trial, it is considered not fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A4 and A5 at this stage.
7. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 02, 2021 KTL