Telangana High Court
Kothapally Dayanand Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1288 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2081 of 2020, pending on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 22.02.2019. At the time of the marriage, the parents of de-facto complainant gave some amount and 60 tulas of gold and 5 kg of silver to accused No.1 as dowry. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 lead their marital life happily for some period. Later, accused No.1, along with other accused, used to harass the de-facto complainant physically and mentally and also used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.385 of 2019 before the Saroornagar WPS Police Station, Rachakonda and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.2081 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the DP Act. 2
EVV,J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021
3. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that except making omnibus false allegations, no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners by the de-facto complainant. He secondly submitted that during the pendency of the case proceedings, petitioner No.1 has passed away. He thirdly submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences, the petitioners were implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He lastly submitted 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 Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and antoher 1, and Lingapuram Papanna and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
1 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1108 2 2025(1) ALD (Crl.) 362 (AP) 3 EVV,J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, stating that the petitioners are conspired with accused No.1 in harassing the de- facto complainant. 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 trial has to be conducted in order to elicit the true facts and as such, interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 3, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are 3 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 4 EVV,J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 at paragraph No.21 held as under:
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this 4 (2012) 10 SCC 741 5 EVV,J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.
Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."
9. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it clear that when no prima facie case is made against the petitioners, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.
10. 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 trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Further, 6 EVV,J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 since petitioner No.1 expired during the pendency of the case proceedings, the Criminal Petition is abated against petitioner No.1.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.2081 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, are here by quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 03.03.2025 FM