Telangana High Court

Veera Venkata Shesha Prasad Ryali vs The State Of Telangana on 16 July, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.8259 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 193 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in

C.C.No.282 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam,

registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the

Women Police Station, Khammam stating that her marriage

with the petitioner was solemnized on 07.03.1993 and they

blessed with two daughters. At the time of marriage,

respondent No.2 is working as a conductor in RTC Bus

depot, Khammam and the petitioner is working as a Junior

Assistant in Khammam. Later, the petitioner got promoted

as Senior Assistant and transferred to Karimnagar. Since

then, the petitioner used to come to Khammam to see

respondent No.2 and his children for every fortnight.

SKS,J

Thereafter, the petitioner again transferred to Hyderabad. It

is further stated that when the petitioner transferred from

Karimnagar to Hyderabad, he is staying with another

women and got illicit relationship with her since six years,

prior to filing of the complaint. Since then, the petitioner is

not taking care of respondent No.2 and her children and he

stopped coming to Khammam. When respondent No.2

asked the petitioner, he harassed her mentally and

physically. Furthermore, the petitioner has taken voluntary

retirement without informing respondent No.2 and drawn

CCS amount of Rs.8 lakhs and used for his luxuries,

without paying single penny to respondent No.2.

3. On receipt of the information that the petitioner has

drawn the CCS amount, immediately respondent No.2 went

to BHEL Bus Depot Manager and requested him not to give

the retirement benefits to the petitioner. Thereafter,

respondent No.2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner about

his retirement benefits, as such, the petitioner has

contacted her on phone and abused her in filthy language

and harassed her physically and mentally.

SKS,J

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a

case in Crime No.49 of 2023 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the IPC and after completion of

investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same was

numbered as C.C.No.282 of 2023 before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam.

5. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Police without properly investigating the case, filed the

charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner has

performed his elder daughter marriage and also spent

money for her education in USA. Further, the petitioner has

taken loan of Rs.7,50,000/- towards education of his

younger daughter from SBH Bank and he is also providing

family necessities. He further submitted that when the

petitioner has taken voluntary retirement, respondent No.2

is harassing him for retirement benefits. Further,

SKS,J

respondent No.2 went to the BHEL Bus Depot Manager and

requested him not to give the retirement benefits to the

petitioner, as such, it clearly shows that there was no

harassment by the petitioner and respondent No.2 is trying

to get the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that respondent No.2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.71 of2023

before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

seeking injunction against the BHEL Depot Manager to stop

sanction of voluntary retirement benefits of the petitioner

and the Court below has granted temporary injunction till

22.02.2023 and later the same was not extended. As the

interim orders were not extended in the said suit,

respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint with false

allegation to settle the retirement benefits in her favour.

Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are

vague and baseless, as such, prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings against him.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

respectively submitted that there are clear allegations

SKS,J

against the petitioner and he is having illicit relationship at

Hyderabad, and the same requires trial and prayed the

Court to dismiss the petition.

9. In support of this submission, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Madra

High Court in Nakkeera @ Jeroan Pandy vs. State and

others 1, wherein in paragraph Nos.15, it is held as under:

"15. Be that as it may, PW-1, categorically stated that the petitioner/husband was having extramarital relationship with one Datchayani, who was also prosecuted as accused/A6 for the offence under Section 494 of IPC., but, however, the Trial Court acquitted the said Datchayani as well as the petitioner for the offence of Section 494 of IPC. In this regard, the evidence cannot be looked into in piecemeal. This Court has to read the evidence of PW.1, PW.7 & PW.8 as a whole and a proper reading would convey the essence that cruelty, predominantly mental cruelty, was unleashed on PW.1, on account of the extramarital affairs developed by the petitioner herein. To this, the learned counsel would rely on paragraph No.15 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in K.V. Prakash Babu case mentioned supra. Which is extracted hereunder:

15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the

Crl.R.C.No.333 of 2014 decided on 07.12.2021

SKS,J

strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly, it can be appreciated in a set of established facts.

Extra marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498(A) of IPC. It would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but mental torture or abnormal behavior that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.

But the perusal of the above dictum would itself make it clear that the Court has take into consideration the said abnormal behavior with the facts and circumstances of the case and it has to be decided whether the conduct amounted to cruelty. Therefore, looked at the evidence of PW.1, PW.7 & PW.8, which is on record, it is clear that there was extramarital relationship. It has caused such an effect on the mental health of PW.1, which resulted in serious domestic discord and her leaving in matrimonial hme. As a matter of fact, as per the evidence on record, PW.1 went out of the matrimonial home on 16.11.2005."

SKS,J

10. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, perusal of

the material placed on record and on going through the

contentions made by both the parties the main allegation

against the petitioner is that he is having illicit relationship

with another woman and he is not visiting respondent No.2

and her children and not taking care of them. When

respondent No.2 asked the petitioner, he abused her in

filthy language, which amounts to cruelty. Further, though

the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only to

harass the petitioner and for the purpose of retirement

benefits this case is filed and the same is not a ground for