Telangana High Court
Gangadhara Manoj vs The State Of Telangana on 12 October, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.8489 OF 2018
Between:
Gangadhara Manoj and 3 others ... Petitioners/A2 to A5
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad. ....Respondent
2. Gangadhara Shylaja
...Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.10.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Criminal Petition No.8489 OF 2018
% Dated 12.10.2023
# Gangadhara Manoj and 3 others ... Petitioners/A2 to A5
And
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad. ....Respondent
2. Gangadhara Shylaja ...Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Y.Randheer
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8489 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A1
to A2 to A5, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.201 of
2018 on the file of Special Mobile Court J.F.C.M., Nizamabad. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that she was
married to Accused No.1. The first wife of Accused No.1 died,
pursuant to which, at the instance of the family members her
marriage was performed with A1. After the marriage, the family
members of A1 started harassing her and though the defacto
complainant asked them to spare her, the harassment continued. On
16.03.2017, the marriage of 2nd respondent's brother was performed
and in the said marriage, Accused No.1 and his younger brother beat
her stating that she did not get enough dowry. In the past also,
Accused No.1 kicked in her stomach resulting in her abortion. On
23.03.2017, her husband's younger son also kicked in her stomach
for additional dowry. Accordingly, complaint was filed.
4. The police after examination of witnesses in the case found that
no offence was made out against Accused Nos.2 to 5 who are the
petitioners herein and accordingly, filed charge sheet only against
Accused No.1 making a request to drop proceedings against A2 to A5.
5. Learned Magistrate has not passed any orders as to why
cognizance has taken against the petitioners herein. A format stamp
was affixed in the charge sheet taking cognizance against these
petitioners and directed to register as CC. The Superintendent has
put up a note at the end of the charge sheet stating that "the charge
sheet was checked and found in order. As per report and statement of
defacto complainant, A2 to A5 have also harassed the defacto
complainant".
6. The said note of the Superintendent on the charge sheet will not
suffice to take cognizance of the offence against whom the Police did
not find any evidence during the course of investigation. In the event
of dropping proceedings by the Police during investigation, it is
incumbent on the Magistrate to issue notice to the complainant
regarding dropping of proceedings against the accused. If the
complainant files a Protest Petition or a Private Complaint alleging
that the accused against whom proceedings also dropped have to be
tried. The Magistrate has to follow the procedure under Section 200
of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate shall record the evidence of witnesses
and thereafter has to record his satisfaction as to why the accused
against whom Police has found no evidence, have to be summoned, to
be tried in the case. No such procedure was followed in the present
case. The Act of learned Magistrate in directing issuing of summons
against the petitioners herein/A2 to A5, on the basis of note put up
by the Superintendent, is found fault with.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.201 of 2018
on the file of Special Mobile Court J.F.C.M., Nizamabad, are hereby
quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.10.2023
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8489 OF 2018
Date: 12.10.2023
tk
