Telangana High Court
CRLP/611/2021 of Aare Nagaraju and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another on 30 December 2022
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TTITI]_ETH DAY OF DECEMBERrwo rHousANo nruo rwEr.rrv iriio Between: AND I.A. NO:1 oF 2021 ffi f{#1:*d;#&Zi,Iffi :,15H:,:i#t1,1,,,"?,,i;Ti, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 610 &6110F 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TTITI]_ETH DAY OF DECEMBERrwo rHousANo nruo rwEr.rrv iriio PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 610 &6110F 2021
Between:
ffi f{#1:*d;#&Zi,Iffi [:,15H:,:i#t1,1,,,"?,,i;Ti,]Student,Natural
...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.4
AND
1.IH,,""rrd'Jr.iilffi ;,8|.3;H,,i;i8r8Hxllfi ll:.",:fi[,suryapetIH,,""rrd'Jr.iilffi ;,8|.3;H,,i;i8r8Hxllfi ll:.",:fi[,suryapet
2.fff ,X;mli#,&|,1f, [,.,,?.I;flg:,i"13ffi,t?fl ]id,:,:iHoueeryire,fff ,X;mli#,&|,1f, [,.,,?.I;flg:,i"13ffi,t?fl ]id,:,:iHoueeryire,
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Seclion 482 of. Cr p /-stared in the Mem ora nd u,':, j:::Irff be pl€ased to call for the re:,'Jj.:'j X;;#,1'lt flffi:;Zo2o.on the r e or *. r;:;',""':;:H1:"Jt:JTjff:I::;"r:J;:^:proceedings.
I.A. NO:1 oF 2021
Petition under Secti(star,ed in the Memorandu,':,:;T.::: ;,llf#",1il:.n,il":T:X;be pleased to grant stay of a' further proceedings including the appearance ofNalgonda.the petitioner in J C'c' No. 1 15 0t 202a on the fire of the Juvenire Justice Board at CRIMINAL PETITION NO.611 OF 2021
Between:
1. Aare Nagaraju, S/o Chandraiah, aged about40 years,Occ:ACTO
2. Aare lakshmi,Wo Chandraiah,aged about 65 years,Occ:household
3. Palla Nawen Kumar,S/o Saida Babu,Aged 2 years,Occ:Software Engineer ( All are R:/o Arlegudem Village, Chitkur Mandal, Suryapet District.)
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,2 & 3
AND
1. Tlre State of Telangana, through S. H.O. Chilkur police Station. SurvaoetDistrict, rep. by itsHuDltc [prosecutor, ]High Court, Hyderabad.District, rep. by itsHuDltc [prosecutor, ]High Court, Hyderabad.
Aare Mamatha, w/o Nagaralu, Aged. about 40 years, occ. Housewife,r/o Artegudem vttage, dnittui tvtEroar, su'.ya-pJb"ari.i [']r/o Artegudem vttage, dnittui tvtEroar, su'.ya-pJb"ari.i [']
2
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 492 of Cr.p.C., praying that in the circumstancesstated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court maybe pleased to cal for the records relating to the charge sheet in c_c.No.1g46 0fbe pleased to cal for the records relating to the charge sheet in c_c.No.1g46 0f2020,on the fire of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Kodad and quash the- [proceedings.]- [proceedings.]
l.A. NO:1 oF 2021
Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p .C praying that in the circumstancesstated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court maybe pleased to grant stay of a, further proceedings incruding the appearance ofHigh Court maybe pleased to grant stay of a, further proceedings incruding the appearance ofthe petitioner in c.c.No-1946 0f 2020, on the fire of the Judiciar First crassMagistrate at Kodad.
These Petitions comino on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum ofGlglnds of criminar petr:tion and upon hearing the arguments of sri CHANDRA9J:-I1HAR. [GANA'URAMU, ][Advocate for the ][p;*ie;;;ino ]tne [pubtic prosecutor]Glglnds of criminar petr:tion and upon hearing the arguments of sri CHANDRA9J:-I1HAR. [GANA'URAMU, ][Advocate for the ][p;*ie;;;ino ]tne [pubtic prosecutor](TG) on behatf of the Resoondent No.1 and oi-iii'E.iuxn"ma Reddy,Advocatefor the Respondent No.2Reddy,Advocatefor the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.61O and 611 [OF ][2O2L]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
1. Crimina-l PetitionNo.6 1O of 2021 is hled to [quash ][the]
proceedings against the petitionerlA4 io J.C.C.No.ILS of [2O2O]on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda.on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda.
2. Criminal Petition No.611 of 2021 is hled seeking [to ][quash]the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to [A,3 ][in ][CC]No.1946 of 2O2O on the hle of the Judicial [First ][Class]Mstrate at Kodad for the offences [punishable ][under]Sections 498-A, 354, 435, 506 r/w 109 IPC and Sections [3]and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 1 [.]
Since both the charge both the charge the charge charge sheets arise out of the out of the of the the [[same]]
3. Since both the charge both the charge the charge charge sheets arise out of the out of the of the the [[same]]incident, both the petitions are heard together and [disposed]off by way of this Common Order.4. The case of the 2d respondent is that she was married [to]the 1"t petitioner in Criminal Petition No.61 1 of 2021,seventeen years prior to the complaint and at the time [of]marriage, dowrlr was a-lso given. They led no(nal marital [life]
for 12 yea-rs. one son and one daughter were born. After herhusband got governmentjob as School Assistant, he developedillegal intimacy with other woman. The 2ndrespondent/complai,ant was a_lso harassed by her husbandand her mother-in-law (A1 & A.2 in C.C.i,{o. L946 of 2O2O) foradditional dowry and she was sent out of the house.Thereafter, the husband got job as ACTo. Howevei., both thehusband and mother-in-law did not rnend their ways andcontinued to harass the 2"a respondent.
5. On |2.OZ.2O2O at about g.OO a.m, the 3.a petitioner incriminal Petition No.611 of 2o2r r,vho is related to the 1"tpetitioner came to their house. When provoked by A1, themother-in-law /A2 arrd A,3, and the son of the 2.a respondent,who is A4/petitioner in Crirninal petition No.61O of 2O2I,quarreled with her and dragged her out of the house. Both ,4,3and his son bur,t her sarees a.nd both threatened to kilr her.Though panchayat was held in the presence of elders, none ofthe petitioners/accused did mend their ways, for whichreason, complaint was filed.
6. On the basis of the said complaint, 3ra petitioner inCriminal Petition No.611 of 2O2l and son of the 2"drespondent in Criminal Petition No.610 of 2O2l i.e.petitioner/A4 were added as accused.
7. tearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2.drespondent having deserted her husband and son, left to herparents house by taking her daughter. After several attemptswere made to get back the 2"a respondent, she [joined ]them butstarted harassing her husband and mother-in-law. 2nd. respondent on her own lelt the house and- Iodged a false [-]complaint. Only omnibus allegations are made and there areno overt acts that are attributed to any of the petitioners, assuch, the complaint, which is hled with a malahde intentionbearing grudge against her husband, proceedings have to bequashed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2ndrespondent would submit that there are specific allegationswhich are leveled against all the petitioners. In fact, there is noreason why the son would bq implicated by his mother unless
he had acted in the manner which the 2.a respondent hasnarrated. In the said circumstances, all the allegations haveto be decided after trial and the grounds raised by thepetitioners cannot be considered.9Having perused the record, the alleged incident happenedon 12.07.2O2O when an a-ltercation between the 2ndrespondent and family members lead to the present complaintbeing Iiled on 13.07.2O2O. Even according to the 2njrespondent, her husband A1 was responsible for the saidincident- The aliegation against the 2"d respondent's son(petitioner in Crl.P.No.61O of 2O2Ll and the relative/3.apetitioner in Criminal petition No.611 of 2O2l is that theyhave burnt sarees and asked her not to i:eturn to the house,failing which, she would be killed. Even though, it is stated bythe 2.a respondent in her complaint that her sarees wereburnt, no specific details are given regarding the incident andthere is no narration as to how the incident occurred. Nodoubt, the mother would not be complaining against her ownson. However, in the present facts of there being a strained relationship between the 2d respondent and her husband, tosee to that her husband concedes to her demands and to showdominance to put pressure on the husband, the son agedaround 14 years and relative aged around 22 years wereimplicated.
10. For the said reasons of ttre complaint being result ofmatrimonial dispute between the 2"a respondent and herhusband, I find that proceedings against the petitioners who are son and relative have to be quashed, as they were falselyimplicated. However, as far as tlre husband and mbther-in-law are concerned, there are specific allegations aboutharassing the 2"a respondent in her matrimonial life, bothphysically and mentally and also demanded additional dowry.These aspects have to be ascertained during the course oftrial, for which reason, the petition {iled by the husband andmother-in-law, who are A1 and A,2 respectively in Crl.P.No.6l1of 2O2l is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioner/A4 inJCC No.115 of 2O2O on the file of Juvenile Justice Board,ar \
Nalgonda are hereby set aside and accordingly, the CriminalPetition No.61O of 2O2l is allowed.Petition No.61O of 2O2l is allowed.
12. The proceedings against 3.d petitioner/A3 in CC No.t946of 2O2O on the hle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate atKodad, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, Criminal petitionNo.611 of 2O2l is disposed off. As a sequel thereto,misceiianeous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.
o""'"'o"trTTySD/- T. JAYASREE//TRUE COPY//' SEQTION,OEFICER
To,
1. The Court ofthe Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda.
2. The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad.
3. The Station House Officer,Chitkur police Station,suryapet District.
4. The Additionat Judicial First Clais Magistrate Court at Kodad.
5. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHigh Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad [OUT]
6. OneCC to SRt. CHANDRASEKHARGANAPURAMU ADVOCATE [OpUClADVOCATE [OpUCl
7. One CC to SRt p. LAKSHMA REDDY, ADVOCATE IOPUC]LAKSHMA REDDY, ADVOCATE IOPUC]
8. Two CD Copies
pcsa \[-,Y]
HIGH COURT
KS, J
DATED:3011212022
COMMON ORDERCRLP.NoS:6i0 anci 6ii of 2021
1HE [Si4]Ig/q1ot7 JIi,t ?u7:1:_;I* D
ALLOWING THE CRLP.NO.61O OF 2O2I
AND
DISPOSING OF T!.{E CRL.P.},!O.Gfi AF 2A21