Y. Agesh 3 Others vs State Of Telangana Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5375 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.3269 of 2015
ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against

petitioners in Crime No.39 of 2015 of W.P.S, Begumpet,

Secunderabad on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A1 who filed

complaint alleging that these petitioners were harassing her, for

which reason, Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone

registered Crime No.39 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 498-

A and 506 of IPC.

3. It is alleged in the complaint by the 2nd respondent that

marriage with the 1st petitioner had taken place on 20.05.2009

according to Christian customs. Thereafter, they were blessed with

a son, who was aged 5 years at the time of filing complaint. The

petitioners have harassed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant

mentally and physically for the reason of additional dowry. She

further alleges that 1st petitioner/husband was assaulting her

physically with hands and legs and also behaved in a sadistic

manner. Panchayats were also held thrice and the elders advised

them to live peacefully for a period of six months. However,

immediately after six months, 1st petitioner caught hold of her hair

and assaulted her. Thereafter she filed complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are

vague allegations in the complaint made by the 2nd

respondent/defacto complainant. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner and

2nd respondent have applied for mutual consent divorce before the

Family Court. There is suppression of material facts in the

complaint written by the 2nd respondent and there is no consistency

of allegations in Telugu written complaint and English written

complaint. The 1st petitioner has filed complaint against the 2nd

respondent/defacto complainant for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and the Police Station, Marredpally

investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the 2nd

respondent, which is pending adjudication. It is apparent that false

allegations were made as seen from her deposition in the

maintenance case. There are several contradictions and there are

no specific allegations which are leveled against the petitioners. In

the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to

quash the proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied

upon the following judgments; i) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

[(1992) Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335; ii) Sunder Babu and

others v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases

244; iii) State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V.Pavithran [(1990) 2

Supreme Court Cases 340] and argued that when the allegations

are vague and improbable, the case has to be quashed. He further

submits that when the criminal proceedings are manifestly

attended with a malafide intention and maliciously instituted with

an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance, such proceedings have

to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

case is at the stage of investigation and unless the case is

investigated, true facts would not come to light. He further states

that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners, for

which reason also, petition has to be dismissed.

6. As seen from the complaint, the allegation against petitioners

2 to 4 is that they have abetted the acts of harassment by the 1st

petitioner/A1. Further, the complaint and other evidence filed in

the criminal case were produced by the petitioners. The

maintenance case is filed only against husband/1st petitioner/A1

and in the entire affidavit filed in the maintenance case, there is no

whisper about the acts of the petitioners 2 to 4. Though the

evidence in the maintenance case cannot be considered, only for the

purpose of adjudicating the present proceedings regarding the

relatives who are A2 to A4 living separately, the said averments

made in the maintenance case can be looked into to assess the

truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the relatives of

the husband.

7. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022 SCC OnLine

SC 162), the Honourable Supreme Court held that allowing

prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in laws

would simply result in an abuse of the process of law and that there

cannot be any criminal case on the basis of false and omnibus

allegations. In the present case also except stating that petitioners 2

to 4 were abetting A1 to inflict injury on the defacto

complainant/2nd respondent, there are no specific allegations, for

which reason, continuance of criminal proceedings against

petitioners 2 to 4 in Crime No.39 of 2015 of W.P.S, Begumpet,

Secunderabad on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, are liable to be quashed and accordingly

quashed.

8. However, petition against A1 is dismissed and police shall

conclude the investigation without arresting A1 keeping in view the

cases which are filed between the 1st petitioner/A1 and 2nd

respondent/defacto complainant.

9. Accordingly, petition is partly allowed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27 .10.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3269 of 2015

Date: 27.10.2022.

kvs