Telangana High Court
Gantela Rani vs The State Of Telangana on 31 July, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7720 AND 7882 of 2024
COMMON ORDER
These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, "CrPC"), seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No. 722 of 2024 registered at Meerpet Police Station, under the jurisdiction of the Rachakonda Commissionerate.
2. I have heard Mr. Jogram Tejavath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Nimma Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. Criminal Petition No. 7720 of 2024 has been filed by Accused No. 1, while Criminal Petition No. 7882 of 2024 has been filed by Accused No. 2. As both petitions arise out of the same criminal proceedings and involve common questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. The respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant, in the underlying criminal case. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners are hereinafter referred to as 'the Accused No.1' and 'the Accused No. 2'.
2 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 5(a). The respondent No.2 (hereinafter "the complainant") filed a private complaint asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of Accused No.1, having been married to him in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, she was only 13 years old and dispute that tender age, she joined the matrimonial home. From the outset, Accused No.1 exhibited a domineering, obstinate, and abusive nature. His parents treated her as a domestic servant.
5(b). Subsequently, Accused No.1 relocated the family to Baroda while undergoing training in Railway Department. The couple did not bear any children during the marriage. This led to persistent verbal abuse and psychological torment from Accused No.1 and his family, who blamed the complainant for the absence of children. While residing in Ramagundam, the complainant became pregnant but suffered a miscarriage due to malnutrition.
5(c). Accused No.1 later secured employment with the Income Tax Department and was sent to Nagpur for training. There, he continued to treat her as a menial servant. Following his transfer to Hyderabad, the couple attempted assisted reproductive procedures, including test tube fertilization, but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, Accused No.1 and his family began spreading rumors and making arrangements for his remarriage. In 2005, to meet the unbearable harassment a female child was adopted, who was named Laxmi Sindhoora.
3 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 5(d). While residing in Hyderabad, the complainant observed Accused No.1 engaging in suspicious conduct, including frequently keeping himself aloof from home at nights. After his transfer to Kurnool, within three months the family went on a trip to Orissa, during which Accused No.1 disclosed to a colleague that he had remarried and had another child through that marriage. Upon returning, when she questioned him, he reacted violently-- creating a scene, abusing her physically and verbally, and eventually forcefully ejecting her from their home. She then returned to Hyderabad, took residence in Mithilanagar, Meerpet, and enrolled the adopted daughter in a nearby school. Accused No.1 was subsequently transferred to Tirupati, Kerala, and then back to Hyderabad.
5(e). The complainant discovered that in Hyderabad the Accused No.1 had purchased a residential flat in Madhapur, where he was cohabiting with Accused No.2 and had fathered three children with her. She also learnt that a plot which had been purchased during her cohabitation with Accused No.1 and registered in her name near Chintapally, was fraudulently transferred to the name of Accused No.2 on the false pretense that the complainant was deceased.
5(f). According to the complainant, Accused No.1 entered into an illicit relationship with Accused No.2, married her, and completely abandoned the complainant and the adopted child. Despite repeated requests, he visited them only once every two or three months. During those rare visits, he would abuse the complainant both physically and verbally, causing public 4 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 disturbances and humiliating her for his own gratification. However he maintained limited communication with the adopted daughter. 5(g). In 2015, the complainant learnt that the Accused No.1 had developed another illicit relationship with a woman named Indira. As a result, a caste panchayat meeting was convened in Vinukonda, during which Accused No.1 admitted to living with Indira for the past one and a half years and agreed to pay her Rs.9 lakhs to end the relationship. Following this, he harbored resentment towards the complainant. Accused No.1 continued to commit acts of cruelty and intimidation to prevent the complainant from seeking legal recourse. In his official capacity, he acquired multiple properties in the names of Accused No.2, their children, and his siblings. 5(h). The complainant confided in her childhood friend, Sujatha, who was married to one Srinivas Reddy. She shared with Sujatha the abuse and cruelty she suffered at the hands of Accused No.1. Exploiting this, Accused No.1 maliciously spread false accusations regarding the complainant's character to deflect attention from his own misdeeds. He routinely treated the complainant with disdain--even during mundane family activities such as shopping, where he would take the daughter in his car but force the complainant to travel by bus or auto-rickshaw.
5(i). As a result of the prolonged abuse and mental distress, the complainant developed serious health issues including diabetes, hypertension, and a heart condition. Accused No.1 remained indifferent to 5 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 her health and continued his pattern of abusive behavior during sporadic visits.
5(j). The accused No.1 frequently instigated the complainant to commit suicide, telling her she is worthless and undeserving of life. He also threatened to kill her, and it was alleged that Accused No.2 actively encouraged Accused No.1 in his abusive behavior.
5(k). In one incident in 2005, when the complainant inquired why the accused No.1 rarely visited the adopted child, Accused No.1 physically assaulted the complainant near a restaurant in public view and she suffered a bleeding injury requiring three stitches. Accused No.1 then absconded to Somasila for 20 days. A neighbor took the complainant to the hospital for emergency care.
5(l). In December 2023, Accused No.1 returned to her residence and created another public disturbance--verbally abusing her in vulgar language, damaging his own vehicle, and tearing his shirt in a staged act to portray himself as a victim. Anticipating that the complainant might pursue legal action for his consistent abuse, Accused No.1 orchestrated a writ petition through their adopted daughter as a defensive strategy. He unlawfully took the child from the complainant's custody and has since alienated her affections by poisoning her mind with lies and money. 5(m). The complainant asserts that she was subjected to 20 years of continuous abuse, deception, and humiliation at the hands of Accused No.1, 6 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 who allegedly deceived multiple women, never treated her as a wife, and purposefully ruined her life. Although she approached the Meerpet Police Station on two occasions, she was advised to pursue legal remedies through the Court, as the matter was deemed familial in nature. Thus, the complaint.
6. The Inspector of Police Meerpet Police Station upon reference by the Court under Section 156(3) of CrPC. registered a case in Crime No.722 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 494, 406, 420, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 6(a). Learned counsel for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioners are innocent and that the complaint is entirely baseless, containing no iota of truth. It is contended that the criminal proceedings have been initiated maliciously, with intent to settle personal scores, and it constitute an abuse of the process of law.
6(b). It is submitted that the Accused No. 1 married the complainant on 29.11.1995. Upon securing employment in the Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) and later in the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), he relocated his family in accordance with his postings. During his posting at Hyderabad, it is alleged that the complainant developed an illicit relationship with one Srinivas Reddy, which caused a serious breakdown in their marital relationship.
6(c). Subsequently, when Accused No. 1 was transferred to Kurnool, the complainant requested for a medical check-up. Following the tests, the attending doctor informed Accused No. 1 that the complainant had tested 7 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 positive for HIV and advised that he too be tested. However, Accused No. 1 tested negative for the disease. A follow-up test conducted at another hospital in Hyderabad confirmed that the complainant was indeed HIV positive.
6(d). Thereafter, in view of the nature of the disease, Accused No. 1, in consultation with elders and family members, arranged for the complainant to reside in a house he had purchased in Hyderabad. The complainant has been residing there continuously since then. Acting on the advice of elders and with the consent of the complainant, her parents, and in accordance with community customs which permit a second marriage, Accused No. 1 married one Rani/Accused No.2. The couple has since been blessed with three children. It is further submitted that Accused No.2. was lenient while the Accused No.1 supported the complainant both medically and financially. 6(e). Counsel further submits that without informing Accused No. 1, the complainant adopted a female child from Yerragondapalem in Prakasam District, whom she named Laxmi Sindoora.
6(f). He further pleaded that even the adopted daughter, having observed the complainant's illicit relationship, confronted her in this regard. In retaliation, the complainant and her alleged paramour conspired to eliminate the girl by poisoning her food. However, due to timely medical intervention, the child was saved. The adopted daughter disclosed the incident to Accused No. 1, who advised her to approach the Women and Child Welfare Department for protection.
8 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 6(g). Based on the above, their adopted daughter filed Writ Petition No. 3188 of 2024 was filed, wherein the complainant, her alleged paramour, and the adopted daughter were shown as unofficial respondents. In the said writ petition, the complainant filed a counter denying that she is HIV positive and levelled false and malicious allegations against Accused No.1. Following this, she lodged a complaint with the police, and upon refusal of the police to register the same, she resorted to filing a private complaint. 6(h). It is further submitted that the complainant coerced the adopted daughter to cooperate in her alleged illicit activities and also demanded six acres of land and Rs.4 Crores from Accused No. 1 as a precondition for not initiating false and coercive legal proceedings. The complainant is allegedly engaged in a deliberate campaign to malign the reputation of Accused No. 1, despite providing her medical and financial needs. 6(i). In light of the above circumstances, it is contended that the prosecution is clearly malicious, vindictive, and intended solely to harass and extort Accused No. 1. It is also emphasized that the allegations, if allowed to proceed, would seriously prejudice his career. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the de facto complainant, along with the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitions. They contended that the allegations contained in the complaint, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case warranting investigation and 9 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 trial under the relevant sections of the law. It was further submitted that the veracity of the facts alleged is a matter to be adjudicated upon after a full- fledged trial. With respect to the petitioner/accused's claims regarding an alleged illicit relationship, purported illness, and an informal settlement mediated by community elders, the respondents argued that these assertions are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any documentary or credible evidentiary material. Moreover, it was asserted that the petitioner has instituted a counter-case with false and misleading allegations as a strategy to evade criminal liability and hinder the course of justice. On these grounds, counsel for respondent No. 2 urged the Court to dismiss the petition in limine. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while concurring with these submissions, nonetheless requested that the petitions be considered and disposed of on its merits.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.
The averments of the complaint:
(i) In regard to cruelty:
9(a). A careful perusal of the complaint, in regard to cruelty it has been stated that the marriage between the complainant and Accused No. 1 was solemnized in November 1995. Following their marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home at in laws place, where the complainant was allegedly treated as a domestic servant by both Accused No. 1 and his 10 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 parents. She further alleges that she was subjected to physical abuse by Accused No. 1.
9(b). Subsequently, the couple moved to Baroda in connection with the railway training of Accused No. 1, where they lived until 1997. During this period, the complainant was allegedly subjected to continued abuse and harassment by Accused No. 1 and his parents. Thereafter, the accused was posted to Ramagundam, and the couple lived there until 1999. It is during this time that the complainant reportedly suffered a miscarriage during the fifth month of pregnancy, which she attributes to severe malnutrition and both mental and physical abuse inflicted by Accused No. 1.
9(c). Following this, Accused No. 1 joined the Income Tax Department and was stationed in Nagpur for training until 2002. The couple subsequently relocated to Hyderabad, where they resided until 2006 in Banjara Hills. During this phase, they underwent an unsuccessful attempt at in-vitro fertilization. The complainant alleges that Accused No. 1 deliberately defamed her, and that his parents proposed that he remarry. As a result of the continuing emotional and physical distress, the complainant adopted a girl child in 2005.
9(d). While residing in Banjara Hills, the complainant noticed erratic behavior from Accused No. 1, including frequently staying out at night without explanation. Accused No. 1 was later transferred to Kurnool, and 11 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 during a trip to Orissa, the complainant claims to have discovered that he had entered into a second marriage and fathered a child. Upon confronting him after their return, Accused No. 1 allegedly physically assaulted her and forced her out of their matrimonial home. Thereafter, she returned to Hyderabad with the adopted daughter and has been residing separately ever since.
9(e). After separate living, despite her requests to the adopted daughter, the accused No.1 allegedly visited only once every two to three months. During these visits, he is said to have verbally abused and physically assaulted the complainant in their home, causing disturbances in the neighborhood. The complaint further alleges that Accused No. 1 regularly harassed and terrorized her, particularly when questioned about his alleged illicit relationship with Accused No. 2.
9(f). It is also averred that Accused No. 1 made repeated visits-- approximately two to three times per month--under the pretext of meeting the adopted daughter, during which he would abuse the complainant and create public nuisances. On multiple occasions, he allegedly instigated her to commit suicide by telling her she was unworthy of life and incapable of bearing a child. The psychological toll of such provocations of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 reportedly drove the complainant to attempt suicide. 9(g). Moreover, the complaint refers to a specific incident in 2015, where Accused No. 1 allegedly assaulted her in a public place near a restaurant 12 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 after she questioned him about his prolonged absences and lack of contact with their adopted daughter. As a result of this incident, the complainant received medical treatment, including stitches for her injuries.
(ii) On the property issues:
10. The complainant has alleged that a plot near Chinthapally was jointly purchased by herself and Accused No. 1 in her name. However, it is stated that, without her knowledge or consent, the said property was unilaterally transferred by Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 2. In addition, it is alleged that Accused No. 1 acquired benami properties in the name of Accused No. 2 and her children.
(iii) Illicit affairs of the accused No.1 and cheating:
11. The complaint also referred to Accused No. 1's alleged illicit relationships, including one that purportedly existed even before his marriage to the complainant. It is claimed that approximately eight years after their marriage, Accused No. 1 developed an extramarital relationship with Accused No. 2, and in 2015, he was involved in another alleged affair with a woman named Indira, which was resolved by community elders at Vinukonda. The complainant contends that Accused No. 1 misled and deceived four different women under the guise of marriage.
(iv) Allegations against the accused No.2:
Regarding Accused No. 2, her name appears in paragraph 13 of the complaint, where it is alleged that she, in collusion with Accused No. 1, instigated the complainant to commit suicide.
13 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 Analysis:
Before proceeding to examine the merits of the present case, it would be pertinent to note that in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., the principles governing the scope of exercise of powers by the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and held as follows :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.
14 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 (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."
In the light of the above principles, the facts and circumstances of the present matter shall be examined.
12. Cruelty: In regard to the allegations of cruelty, for better appreciation the relevant provision is extracted here under:
Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
15 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
It is a settled principle of law that for an offence to fall under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the conduct in question must be willful and of such a nature that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave mental or physical injury, or it must relate to harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands, including dowry.
13. In the present case, the complaint does not allege any demand for dowry or any unlawful demand. Thus, the only question is whether the alleged conduct amounts to "cruelty" as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC.
14. Upon careful scrutiny of the allegations, it becomes evident that the complainant has been residing separately with her adopted daughter since 2007. While the complaint references acts of harassment dating back to 1995, it lacks specific details regarding the nature, frequency, and circumstances of those events. The complainant's allegations against Accused No. 1 and his parents are general, unsubstantiated assertions, devoid of supporting evidence or mention of any effort to involve her own 16 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 family, elders, or legal channels prior to filing the present complaint in June 2024. The prolonged delay and lack of corroboration suggest conduct inconsistent with expected human behavior under such circumstances. Therefore it shall be concluded that, the allegations are vague, lacking in specificity, and are unsupported by particulars or any reasonable explanation for the long delay in initiating criminal proceedings. Therefore these accusations are falling short in making out essentials of cruelty within the scope of Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused No. 2--allegedly the second wife--is not a "relative" of the husband as interpreted under Section 498-A IPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757. Therefore, even if the complainant's allegations are taken at face value, they do not fulfill the requirements for prosecution under Section 498- A IPC.
15. Bigamy: With respect to the alleged second marriage, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 referred to each other as spouses. The complainant alleges that Accused No. 1 remarried without obtaining a divorce, potentially constituting bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC. The relevant provision reads thus, Section 494: Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife: Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
17 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 Exception.--This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.
16. Accused No. 1 contends that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe-- specifically, the Banjara community--and that, in accordance with customary tribal practices and with the consent of the complainant and her family, he entered into a second marriage with Accused No. 2. Under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, customary laws remain valid unless they contravene fundamental rights. Additionally, Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, explicitly states that the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless notified otherwise by the Central Government.
17. It is undisputed that both the complainant and Accused No. 1 belong to the Banjara community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. Their marital customs, including those related to divorce and remarriage, are governed by traditional norms unless specifically overridden by statutory law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, AIR 2001 SC 938, reaffirmed that in 18 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 the absence of a notification under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, tribal customary laws continue to govern matrimonial issues.
18. The Banjara community is known for its distinctive marriage customs, including regulated forms of monogamy and polygamy, as adjudicated by their internal community forum--the Gor Panchayat. Polygamy, though less common today, remains culturally permissible in certain scenarios such as chronic illness of the first wife, absence of male heirs, or the need to provide for a widow within the family. Divorce is also accepted within the community, subject to the formal approval of the Gor Panchayat. These customary practices, while recognized culturally, have also received legal acknowledgment in the absence of contradictory statutory enforcement.
19. In the present case, Accused No. 1 has not pleaded divorce but asserts a valid customary marriage with Accused No. 2. Moreover, the complainant herself states she did not bear children and the accused No.1 asserts that the complainant suffers from a chronic illness (HIV), under the community's customs, are recognized grounds for the husband to take another wife.
20. Further, the alleged second relationship commenced in 2003--eight years post-marriage--and the complainant has lived separately since 2007, her prolonged silence until 2023 tends to support the claim of tacit or express consent. There is also no assertion in the complaint that polygamy is prohibited within the Banjara community.
19 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024
21. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur (supra) categorically held that the provisions relating to bigamy under the Indian Penal Code, particularly Section 494, are not applicable to members of Scheduled Tribes if their customary law does not treat such marriages as void. The Court emphasized that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision overriding tribal customs, the validity of a second marriage among Tribals must be examined in light of their personal customary laws.
22. Therefore, the alleged marriage between Accused Nos. 1 and 2 appears to conform to their tribal customs, making prosecution under Section 494 IPC untenable.
23. Property issues: The complainant alleges that the plot near Chinthapally was purchased in the name of the complainant, but subsequently transferred to Accused No. 2 without her consent. However, there are no specific details provided regarding the identity, extent, or value of the property, the date of purchase, the sale consideration, or the complainant's financial contribution. Furthermore, the complainant does not assert that the property was entrusted to Accused No. 1, nor does she explain the delay in raising the issue until the filing of the present complaint.
24. Consequently, the allegations regarding property transactions are lacking in material particulars and credibility. The vague claim that Accused No. 1 acquired benami properties in the name of Accused No. 2 or her 20 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 children is unsupported by any verifiable evidence or legal documentation. As such, these assertions do not make out a prima facie case worthy of judicial scrutiny.
25. Voluntarily causing hurt: The alleged section of offence reads as follows:
Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. While the complainant alleges that she was subjected to physical violence on multiple occasions, however, all of them without particulars further were no reference as to involvement of dangerous weapons or any mention about the place and period of medical treatment. Therefore the allegations do not meet the threshold for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt at least under 323 of IPC much less under section 324 of IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons).
26. Cheating: Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Someone who cheats another person and 21 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 tricks them into giving them property or valuable security can be charged under this section.
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In the instant complaint, there are no averments or any circumstance suggesting that the complainant was dishonestly induced by the petitioners/accused to deliver property due to intentional deception, thereby ruling out the offence of cheating.
Conclusion:
27. It is pertinent to note, as per the timeline provided in the complaint, these alleged acts of the accused No.2 have been committed only after 2007, when the complainant began living separately from Accused No. 1.
Notably, the inclusion of Accused No. 2's name in the complaint appears to have been added later by hand, raising questions about the spontaneity and veracity of the allegations. There are no specific averments detailing the time, location, or nature of the alleged instigation by the Accused No. 2, nor any evidence indicating when the complainant attempted suicide. Furthermore, no specific overt acts have been attributed to Accused No.2.
22 NTR,J CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024
28. In the absence of detailed, specific, and corroborated allegations-- especially against Accused No. 2--and given the implausibility of several claims, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This case clearly falls within the legal parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute a miscarriage of justice and cause irreparable harm to the reputation and liberty of the accused.
29. For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition Nos.7720 of 2024 and 7882 of 2024 are liable to be and are accordingly allowed. In effect, the proceedings in Crime No.722 of 2024 on the file of the Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate against the accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:31.07.2025 ccm