Telangana High Court
Patlolla Ranga Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 31 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5772 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in
C.C.No.486 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Tandur, Vikarabad District. The offences alleged
against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C') and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short
'D.P.Act').
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd
respondent/complainant lodged a complaint stating that her
marriage was performed with the petitioner/A.1 on 14.04.2022
and at the time of marriage, her parents gave 40 tulas of gold,
Rs.10 Lakhs cash and household articles worth of Rs.3 Lakhs in
addition they spent Rs.6 Lakhs towards marriage expenses.
After the marriage, 2nd respondent joined the company of
petitioner at her matrimonial home. After ten days of the
marriage, A.1 to A.4 harassed the 2nd respondent physically and
mentally to bring Rs. 5 Lakhs additional dowry from her
parents. It is also stated that petitioner was addicted to all bad
habits and he is also having illegal affair with one Ramya due to
which, he neglected the 2nd respondent, the petitioner used to
come home late night daily by consuming alcohol and used to
beat her. A.3-father-in-law of 2nd respondent used to mis-
behave with her in the absence of petitioner and A.4-brother-in-
law of 2nd respondent defamed her character and provoked the
petitioner saying that she is having bad character. However, on
08.05.2022, A.1 to A.4 together beat the 2nd respondent
mercilessly, abused her using most filthy language and
threatened her with dire consequences and necked out her from
the house by leaving the 2nd respondent at her parents' house.
As such, she requested the police to take necessary action.
Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the
above offences.
3. Heard Smt P.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and none appeared
on behalf of 2nd respondent.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence.
The 2nd respondent stayed with the petitioner only for five days
and later she left to her parents' house and did not turn up.
When petitioner went to the house of parents of 2nd respondent,
she openly stated that she is not interested in leading marital
life with the petitioner and when the petitioner proposed to place
the matter before the elders, the 2nd respondent filed this
complaint with all the false and frivolous allegations. When the
2nd respondent stayed with the petitioner only for five days, it is
highly impossible for a person to know the conduct and
character of a person and for a couple to adjust, it would take
considerable time, but in the instant case, the 2nd respondent
left to her parents' house within five days. There are
contradictory statements. In the complaint the 2nd respondent
alleged that 40 tulas of gold was given by her parents, but in her
statement she stated only 25 tulas gold. The allegations made
against the petitioner are vague in nature. In fact the petitioner
is the victim in the hands of 2nd respondent. As such, prayed
the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none
appeared on her behalf.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
there are serious allegations against the petitioner and further
he is having extra marital relationship with another woman and
the said allegation requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to
dismiss this petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the
counsel and the material placed on record would show that
petitioner along with other family members harassed the 2nd
respondent physically and mentally. The petitioner used to
consume alcohol and beat the 2nd respondent. There are
allegations against all the family members of petitioner, that all
of them beat the 2nd respondent mercilessly. Though the
learned counsel for petitioner contends that there are
contradictions in the statement of victim and also in the
complaint, it is not the stage to consider the same. As prima-
facie, the allegations made against the petitioner constitutes the
offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C, which requires trial.
8. However, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the
complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offences as
alleged by the prosecution. Further, while dealing with the
petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take
into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the
statements of witnesses and if the averments made therein do
not constitute any offence, as alleged against the accused
persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to
be quashed.
9. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, in
paragraph No.14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court
of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several
judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to
be used sparingly, carefully and with caution.
The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence
has not been collected and produced before the
Court and the issues involved, whether factual
or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material."
10. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (supra),
this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,
the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is
dispensed with unless his presence is specifically required
during the course of trial, subject to the condition that
petitioner be represented by his counsel on every date of
hearing.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :31.07.2024
Rds
