Telangana High Court
Vancha Krishna Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11512 of 2023
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7
in C.C.No.225 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. The facts of the case are that on 10.02.2023, at 15:00 hrs,
the defacto complainant gave complaint to the police, Kukatpally,
stating that on 09.12.2016 her parents performed her marriage
with Vancha Naveen Reddy, and at the time of marriage, her
parents gave 45 tolas of gold, 80 tolas of silver, and 3 lakhs of cash
to Naveen Reddy and to his parents as dowry and after marriage
her conjugal life was very well for a period of six months, and from
then her husband did not do any work and did online betting and
harassed her physically and mentally whenever he need money he
warned the complainant and took complainant personal loan
amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and used to his needs, later took chit
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her brother Beem Reddy and used
his needs, even though he was harassed the complainant, later she
took the matter before her father in law Vancha Krishna Reddy,
mother in law, Vancha Nirmala, brother in law Vancha Baskar
Reddy, Baskar Reddy wife Lasya and her husband's uncle Manda
Anji Reddy and Anji Reddy wife Swapna, and they all supported her
husband and due to unbearable harassment of her in laws, she has
informed her mother and brother by that several times, her mother
and brother came to in-laws house and tried to convince her
husband, but they did not change their attitude, and harassed her
and took her gold which was offered by her parents. Due to raising
of their harassment three months back, she came to her mother's
house at Karnalpally village and staying with her mother, and gave
complaint to the police. Basing on the same, the police registered
the case in Crime No.41 of 2023 for the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-
State.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that these petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 7, and there are no
allegations against these petitioners and all the witnesses gave
statement without attributing any specific allegation against these
petitioners, and the allegations against these petitioners are
omnibus in nature and the investigating agency has not considered
the same and filed charge sheet against the petitioners. Learned
counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neelu
Chopra v. Bharathi 1, and MirzaIqbal alia Golu vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh 2, wherein the Supreme Court observed that when FIR
does not disclose specific allegations which would persuade the
Court to take cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A, yet a
charge sheet has filed against the petitioners and other accused
and they are being prosecuted for the alleged offences, and this is
complete contravention of the above observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It is also contended that the investigation agency
received complaint on 10.02.2023, and FIR was registered on same
day, and it is essential to note that this is in contravention of the
guidelines laid by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that these
petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 7, parents and other relatives of
the husband of defacto complainant. The allegations against these
petitioners are omnibus in nature and there are no specific
allegations against these petitioners. In view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
v. State of Bihar, and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
the Courts have to be cautious in allowing the prosecution of
2009 (10) SCC 184
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2021
relatives of husband on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations,
and unless specific allegations are levelled against the relatives of
the husband, the High Court can intervene under the inherent
powers to quash the proceedings.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for defacto
complainant would submit that there are specific allegations
against all the petitioners and all the petitioners supported accused
No.1 to harass the defacto complainant, and the allegations against
these petitioners require trial and therefore prayed to dismiss the
criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on
record, the allegations against these petitioners are that when the
defacto complainant approached these petitioners making
allegations against accused No.1 these petitioners did not support
the defacto complainant and instead they supported accused No.1
and they also harassed the defacto complainant for additional
dowry. Except these there are no specific allegations against these
petitioners. Therefore, as per the observations of the Apex Court in
Preeti Gupta and Kahkashan Kausar and Geeta Mehrotra, where
there are no specific allegations against the relatives of the
accused, the Courts have to be cautious in allowing the prosecution
against the relatives of the accused.
8. In view of the same, as there are no specific allegations
against petitioners/A2 to A7, the criminal petition is allowed,
quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.225 of
2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Medak.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
disposed of.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
26th April, 2024
ksm
