Telangana High Court
Dareddy Seetharamireddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10873 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in S.C.No.302 of 2017 pending on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Alwal Police Station, stating that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to petitioner/accused No.1 and at the time of marriage, Rs.3 lakhs cash, two tolas gold and utensils were given towards dowry. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner and deceased were blessed with two children. It is alleged that since the day of marriage, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been harassing the deceased in relentless manner and he used to demand additional dowry time and again. It is alleged that the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023 brother of petitioner who is accused NO.2 used to consistently instigate petitioner against the deceased. On 14.07.2015 at about 6 P.M., the respondent No.2 received a phone call informing him about the death of his daughter and her two children. When he rushed to the house of petitioner/accused No.1 he found his daughter dead lying on a bed and in another room two children were also dead. Alleging that petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased, the said complaint was lodged.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, arraying him as accused No.1 and his brother as accused No.2. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 praying to quash the proceedings initiated against him.
4. Heard Sri D.Sudershan, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case by his father in law and contended that except alleging in a vague manner that on instigation of accused No.2, the petitioner committed crime, no other credible information such as specific overt act, date time and place attributing specific role of petitioner, is stated by respondent No.2. He asserted that the proceedings against the accused No.2 are discharged vide order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Crl.RC.No.1788 of 2018 and that being so, even petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to obtain the benefit of discharge as false allegations are leveled against him without any supporting material evidence or witness. He affirmed that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint averments are baseless and vague and the offence under Section 304-B of IPC does not constitute against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, submitted that as per the complaint averments and the charge sheet averments, the petitioner/accused No.1 is allegedly responsible for three death and the matter being of serious nature, the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023 proceedings against him cannot be quashed at this stage as the matter requires trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the averments of the complaint, the petitioner/accused No.1 used to harass the deceased and demand additional dowry. It is seen that the wife of petitioner/accused No.1 died within 7 years of marriage and their children were also found dead in another room.
8. At this stage, it is imperative to mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023 of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution.
The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
9. In the present case, it is noted that though learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 contends that the case is based on vague allegations, it is pertinent to note that the complaint averments would prima facie disclose that the petitioner/accused No.1 used to frequently demand additional dowry and harass the deceased. It is noted that the petitioner/accused No.1 has also demanded Rs.10,000/- on the pretext of not receiving salary and harassed the deceased in this regard. Further, the two children of the deceased and petitioner/accused No.1 were also found dead in another room. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no prima facie 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023 allegations in the averments of the complaint. Further, though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings against the accused NO.2 are discharged and as such, the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled for benefit of discharge, cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1.
10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:20.06.2024 PT