Telangana High Court
CRLP/10171/2021 of Bhashaboina Ashok Vs State of TELANGANA on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAO FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION NO i 10171 oF 2021 Between: 1. Bhashaboina Ashok, S/o. Kuma,ra.Swamy,. Ag e_ 27 years, Occ- unemployee
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYOERABAO
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO i 10171 oF 2021
Between:
1. Bhashaboina Ashok, S/o. Balvanthapur, Duggondi Mandal. Warang'af Kuma,ra.Swamy,. Ag e_ Olitriii 27 '-- years, Occ- [-' ][-]unemployee R/o.2. Bhashaboina Kumara Swamy, S/o Sambarah, Age- 00 years, '""Occ_ farmer R/o.Balvanthapur, Duggondi Manbat. Warangif O,sirici- [-' ]2. Bhashaboina Kumara Swamy, S/o Sambarah, Age- 00 years, '""Occ_ farmer R/o.Balvanthapur, Duggondi Manbat. Warangif O,sirici- [-' ]3 Bhashaboina Komuramma @ Komurakka. W/o. Kumara Swamy. Age_ 59 years.@ Komurakka. W/o. Kumara Swamy. Age_ 59 years.Occ- housewife R/o. Batvani6apu.. DuSSonOi Man jatlrirT#ngaf Oistrtct
4. R/o. Peraboina Kumara Batvanthapur. Ouggo,ij, Swamv S/o. lvind"f. Chandraiah. W"iangaf BLtAge- 4g years, Occ_ unemployee
5. Peraboha Samatha, W/o. Kumara.Swamy, Age- 29 years, Occ- unemployeeRio. Batvanthapur. Duggondr Mandat. Wara'ngat"Dis;i;t ' [-- ][-]Rio. Batvanthapur. Duggondr Mandat. Wara'ngat"Dis;i;t ' [-- ][-]
... PETITION E RS/ACCUSED 1TO 5
AND
1. State of Tetangana, Rep through the public prosecutor, A.p. High Court,HyderabadHyderabad
2. Gajji Umadevi, D/o. Odelu, Age- 23 years, Occ_ student Rl/o. Mulugu, (MuluguDistrict) Warangal DistrictDistrict) Warangal District
...RESPONOENTSiCOMPLAINANT
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances statedin the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preasedto quash the Proceedings in c.c.No.65z ol 2021 on the file of the Judicial First classMagistrate, Mulugu, Mulugu D [jstrict.]
I,Aoi ['l ]OF 2021
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances statedin the N,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleasedto grant stay of further Proceedings in c.c.No.657 ol 2o2i on the file of the JudicialFirst Class l\,4agistrate, lrilulugu, including personal appearance of the petitioners.First Class l\,4agistrate, lrilulugu, including personal appearance of the petitioners.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the N4emorandum ofGrounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. V. AnanthaGrounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. V. AnanthaKrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of theRespondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or byAdvocate.Advocate.
The Court made the following: OROER
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHERCRIMINAL PETITION No.10171 oF 2o21CRIMINAL PETITION No.10171 oF 2o21
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.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 7973 (for short, [.Cr.p.C.,), ]is filed by theCriminal Procedure, 7973 (for short, [.Cr.p.C.,), ]is filed by thepetitioners/A.1 to A.5 seeking to quash the proceedings againstthem in C.C,No.657 of 202t on the file of learned JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Mulugu, wherein cognizance was takenfor the offence punishable under Section 420 Lp.C. and Section3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.them in C.C,No.657 of 202t on the file of learned JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Mulugu, wherein cognizance was takenfor the offence punishable under Section 420 Lp.C. and Section3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel For the petitioners/A.1 to A.5,the learned Assistant public prosecutor represenUng therespondent No.1/State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 wouldsubmit that there is no material to substantiate that thepetitioners have demanded dowry etc., from the respondentNo,Z/de Facfo complainant. Basing on the statements of some ofthe witnesses, the petitioners/A.l to A.5 were roped into thepresent case on false and frivolous allegations and hence,continuation of proceedings against them is abuse of process oflaw and ultimately prayed this Court to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioners/A.1 to A.5.
4. As seen from the material placed on record, the allegationagainst the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 is that unless the respondentNo.2/de Facto complainant meets their dowry demand, theywould not perform her marriage with the petitioner No.1/A.1.
II
I
The [petitioners/A.1 ]to A.5 also abused [her ][in filthy ][language.]When there is such an allegation, it [cannot ][be ][held ][that]continuation of [proceedings ][against ][petitioners/A ][1 to ][A.5 ][is]abuse of [process ]of [law.]
5. In the course of submissions, [it ][is brought ][to the ][notice ][of]this Court by both sides [that ][charges ][are not ][yet ][framed ][by ][the]trial Court in the subject [C.C.]
6. It is [pertinent ]to [state ][that ][since ][charges ][are not ][yet]framed by the trial Court [in ][the ][subject ][C ][C. and ][a ][hearing ][is]contemplated before charges are [framed, ][the ][petitioners/A.1 ][to]A.5 are entltled to raise all [the ][grounds ][that ][are ][proposed ][to ][be]raised herein, before the trial Court. [According ][to ][Sections ][239]and 240 Cr.P.C., [if ]the [Magistrate, upon considering ][the ][police]report and the documents [sent ][with ][it ][under Section 173 ][and]making such examination, [if ][any, ][of ][the ][accused ][as he ][thinks]necessary and after [giving ][the ][prosecution ][and ][the ][accused ][an]opportunity of being [heard, ][considers ][the ][charge against ][the]accused to be [groundless, ][he shall ][discharge ][the ][accused. ][and]record his reasons for so [doing' ][Conversely, ][if the ][Magistrate]finds that there is a [ground ][for ][presuming ][that the ][accused ][has]committed the offence triable by [him, ][shall frame ][charge ][in]writing against the accused. [Therefore, ][the ][petitioners/A.1 ][to]A.5 can flle a comprehensive [application ][under ][Section ][239]Cr.P.C. before the trial Court [raising ][the ][grounds ][to ][terminate]lhe [proceedings, ]if they [choose ][to ][do ][so. ][If ][there are ][no grounds]to frame charges, the [petitioners/A. ][I ][to ][A.5 ][are ][entitled ][for]
t--
discharge, in accordance with law. It is for the trial Court torecord a finding to that effect. The Hon'ble Apex Court has timeand again deprecated the practice of invoking the inherentjurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whenan effective and efficacious remedy is available to the accusedbefore the trial Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C isrequired to be exercised with abundant caution and care. In thegiven circumstances oF the case, when an effective andefficacious remedy is available to the petitioners/A.1 to A.5under a particular provision of law, it is not appropriate toexercise the lnherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. In the event of petitioners/A.1 to A.5 filing an applicationunder Section 239 Cr.P.C before the trial Court, the trial Courtshall dispose of the same, independently, on merits, inaccordance with law. It is made clear that no opinion isexpressed with regard to merits or demerits of the case.
7, With the above observations, this Criminal Petition isdisposed of.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this CriminalPetition shall stand closed.
SO/.K.AMMAJIASSISTANT REGISTRAR(g--"SECTION OFFICER
,TRUE COPY'
To,
1The Judicial First Class Magistrate, l\,4ulugu District Warangal.2One CC to Sri N. V. Anantha Krishna, Advocate tOpUCl3Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Courl for the State of Telangana atHyderabad. [OUT]Hyderabad. [OUT]4Two CD Copies5One Spare Copysbrsbr \
HIGH COURT
DATED: [3111212021]
ORDER
CRL.P.No.10171 of [2021]
DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION
@ry;;*
1 [i-tE STA][I€']!f(J.J25 [Fi* ][Ii??]\\*\_t, -