Telangana High Court
Ahmed Faseehuddin , Iqbal vs State Of Telangana on 20 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners/A2 & A3, to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.742/2018 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad,
R.R.district at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against them are
under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
3. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed a complaint
with Saroornagar WPS, alleging that she was married to Accused
No.1 on 20.11.1998 and had four female children who are in her
custody. On 25.10.2012, Accused No.1 informed that he filed
case against the parents of the defacto complainant and other
relatives for property. However, the said property was already
distributed when the mother of Accused No.1 was alive. The
father of the defacto complainant was contesting the matter for
which reason, A1 bore grudge against her. These petitioners who
are the brothers of her husband were torturing mentally and
physically and also showed knives and threatened that if her
father did not settle the property in their favour, they would kill
her. Signatures on blank papers and bond papers of old dates
were taken.
4. Further A1 to A3 and these petitioners also wanted the
signatures of the parents of the defacto complainant. Since they
did not listen, she was beaten up, on which she called her
parents, who took her to the police station and the said
complaint was registered on 09.11.2017. According to the
statement made, at the time of marriage dowry was given.
Accused No.1 was the maternal aunt's son with whom marriage
of 2nd respondent was performed. They started living in joint
family property which portion belonged to her father. Whenever
she went to the college, A1 used to suspect her. In the year 1999,
A1 went to US for job purpose. During that time, her in-laws,
including these petitioners used to harass her. Four daughters
were born and A1 was harassing her for not giving birth to a son.
5. In the year 2012 her mother-in-law died and after her
death, signatures on blank papers were taken forcibly by Accused
No.1. In the year 2013, A1 and these petitioners filed case before
the High Court against defacto complainant's father and his
brothers. However, the Judgment went in favour of her father.
Her father was a mentor of a 'Darga' situated at L.B.Nagar. These
petitioners were harassing her to mutate the 'darga' property in
their name and also in the name of A1.
6. It is further alleged that A1 suspected her character and
had beaten with hands and legs when she came back after
attending funeral on 21.03.2017. Accused No.1 had beaten on
the head with a rod. On 16.08.2017, when the defacto
complainant's father and others came to her house, these
petitioners and A1 confronted him and quarreled with him. When
they wanted to file a complaint, A1 and these petitioners
undertook to take care of her for which reason, complaint was
not filed. However, for the reason of A1 beating her and the
petitioners herein threatening the defacto complaint, in respect of
properties, complaint was filed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that disputes are pending regarding properties in
between family members. In fact, 2nd respondent is the first
cousin of these petitioners. In view of pending disputes,
police complaint is filed against these petitioners to force
settlement.
8. In the complaint several instances are narrated wherein
it is specifically alleged against these petitioners regarding
beating etc. The allegations can only be agitated before the
trial Court. The ground that there are pending disputes
before the Courts, false complaint would be filed cannot be
accepted as it is also likely that on account of pending
property disputes, the incidents might have happened. The
factual aspect can only be determined after trial.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the attendance of petitioners is dispensed with the
following directions:
i) The attendance of the petitioners/A2 & A3 is
dispensed with in C.C.No.742 of 2018 on the file of V
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, R.R.district at L.B.Nagar,
when represented by their counsel on record.
ii) The attendance of the petitioners is dispensed
subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating
that in their absence the proceedings conducted by their
counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and
shall not dispute their identity also.
iii) However, the petitioners shall appear before the
learned Magistrate as and when their presence is
required. In the event of the petitioners' failure to
appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing
their attendance shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 20.09.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 OF 2020
Dt. 20.09.2023
kvs
