Telangana High Court

Bhukya Mangamma, vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 June, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10160 AND 10161 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

The lis involved in these twopetitions being one

and the same, both the criminal petitions areheard

together and are being decided by way of this common

order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C') whereunder, Criminal Petition No.10160 of

2023 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and

Criminal Petition No.10161 of 2023 is filed by

petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the

proceedings initiated against themin PRC.No.13 of 2023

on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mahabubabad District, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 509 and 307

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

'IPC').

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a private complaint

stating that at the time of her marriage with accused

No.1, her parents gave a dowry of Rs.21,50,000/- in the

form of cash and 30 tulas of gold ornaments and after

living happily for a short period of time, her

husband/accused No.1, under the instigation of accused

Nos.2 and 3 started harassing her physically and

mentally for the purpose of additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/-. Later, though the father of respondent

No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the

account of accused No.1, the harassment from the end

of accused Nos.1 and 2 continued. Thereafter, when the

respondent No.2, along with her kid came to the house

of accused No.1 to live, the accused Nos.1 and 2 left

their house and began to reside in Hyderabad. However,

on 28.08.2021 when the respondent No.2 came back to

the house along with her kid, she found that the door

lock was broken and accused Nos.1 and 2 were in her

room. It was alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

attempted to kill the respondent NO.2 by hanging her

with chuni but she managed to escape in view of several

people gathering at the place of incident due to her hues

and cries. Further, the respondent NO.2 also alleged that

the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of several gold

ornaments and other valuable items, as such, requested

the Police to take necessary action.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police

investigated the matter and on completion of due

investigation, the Police filed chargesheet against the

petitioners in both criminal petitions. Aggrieved thereby,

the accused Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.P.No.10160 of 2023

and accused No.1 filed Crl.P.NO.10161 of 2023.

5. Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel for petitioners

in both the matters, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No

representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto

complainant.

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1

to 3 submitted that the allegations leveled against the

petitioners are completely baseless, vague and are based

on untenable grounds. He contended that the accused

Nos.1 to 3 never demanded additional dowry and the

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- that was transferred to the

account of accused NO.1 by the father of respondent

No.2 was for the purpose of purchasing flat in Bangalore

and the same was returned by accused No.1 to the

father of respondent No.2. He asserted that after the

birth of male child, when the accused No.1 demanded

divorce from respondent No.2, she never returned to his

house and after a gap of three months, she lodged a

complaint against the accused No.1. He reiterated that

the accused Nos.1 to 3 never harassed the respondent

No.2 demanding additional dowry and contended that

when the respondent No.2 never lived in the house of

accused No.1 after the birth of a child, the question of

theft of her belongings does not arise. Therefore, prayed

this Court to allow the criminal petitions, quashing the

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 3.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, contended that there are several serious

allegations made against the petitioners/accused Nos.1

to 3, as such, if the proceedings against them are

quashed at this stage, grave prejudice would be caused

to respondent No.2. Therefore, prayed this Court to

dismiss the criminal petitions.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and

on going through the averments of the chargesheet, it is

noted that the family of respondent No.2 gave an amount

of Rs.21,50,000/- towards dowry in the form of cash to

the accused No.1, as a result of which the respondent

NO.2 joined the conjugal society of accused No.1. It is

alleged that after living happily for a couple of months,

on instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, the accused No.1

demanded additional dowry to respondent No.1 and

harassed her mentally and physically and also

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

threatened to kill her. Allegedly, the family of respondent

No.2 gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to accused No.1

towards additional dowry and still the accused Nos.1 to

3 did not change their behavior and intensified their

harassment towards respondent No.2 demanding her to

arrange more amount towards additional dowry, if not,

abetting her to commit suicide stating that they would

get more dowry if accused No.1 gets remarried. The

averments in the charge sheet would show that the

allegations are mainly against accused Nos.1 and 2.

There are no specific allegations against accused No.3

and his presence in the theft is also not stated.

9. At this stage, it is imperative to note that 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 Police.

10. In addition, it is pertinent to note that paragraph

No.14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.10160&10161 OF 2023

the case ofState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 1, reads 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 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."