Telangana High Court

Gudibandla Shyam Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 19 June, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4569 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings

against him in PRC.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Principal

Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Yellandu Station, for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 307, 506, 384,

417, 420, 498-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

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

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she

had acquaintance with petitioner as a friend since college days

i.e., when he used to follow her in the name of love. It is alleged

that he followed her up to one year, took her into confidence by

his deceitful words and assured her that he would take well

care of her but however, in the month of June, 2020, without

her consent he has sexually assaulted her and threatened her

by saying that he would kill her if she discloses the same to any

SKS,J

of her family members. However, when the respondent NO.2

requested him to marry her, he ignored the same, as such, the

respondent No.2 disclosed about the incident to her parents,

who in turn, in the presence of elders met the petitioner and

counseled him. During the counseling, the petitioner agreed to

marry the respondent No.2 but after sometime, his family

demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards the dowry.

However, after negligence on multiple occasions, ultimately, the

petitioner married respondent NO.2 on 30.12.2021. Even after

marriage, the petitioner allegedly demanded an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to which the family of respondent NO.2 gave an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in spite of the same, the petitioner

abused the respondent NO.2 in filthy language and harassed

her.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated

the case and upon completion of the investigation, a charge

sheet was filed against nine accused persons, whereunder, the

petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner/accused No.1 filed this Criminal Petition praying to

quash the proceedings against him.

SKS,J

4. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant

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

representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto

complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegations raised against the petitioner are baseless and vague

and are without any evidence on record. He contended that

originally, it is the petitioner who is aggrieved person in the

hands of the respondent NO.2 and due to her unsocial

activities, the petitioner also approached the Court of First

Class Judicial Magistrate, at Yellandu and filed a private

complaint. He further contended that the petitioner has filed

total of three writ petitions viz., WP.Nos.8741, 32362 and 32597

of 2022 against the respondent No.2 due to failure of Yellandu

Police in non-initiating to conduct the proper and necessary

investigation due to which the Police bore a grudge against the

petitioner, as such, by colluding with the respondent No.2, the

Police implicated the petitioner in false case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court

that the petitioner also filed O.P.No.751 of 2022 before the

Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, seeking to declare the

SKS,J

marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 as null and void. He

contended that the remand report does not contain any

contents which discloses as to how the respondent No.2 was

raped by petitioner and no specific date or time is stated by the

respondent No.2. Therefore, he asserted that the alleged

Sections of law are not applicable in the case of petitioner and

prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the

proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State submitted

that the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1

with regard to rape, abuse, cheating and physical harassment

are serious in nature and asserted that the matter requires full-

fledged trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal

Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

according to the prosecution and as per the contents of

complaint the petitioner attempted to follow the respondent

No.2 for about one year, took her into confidence by his

deceitful words and assured her that he would take well care of

her but then in the month of June, 2020, without her consent

SKS,J

he has sexually assaulted her and threatened her of dire

consequences by saying that he would kill her if she discloses

the same to any of her family members. It was further alleged

that the petitioner along with his family has harassed the

respondent NO.2 for dowry and also abused her in filthy

language and that therefore, after grabbing enough amount

from the family of respondent NO.2, the petitioner along with

his family locked his house and started residing in Hyderabad

and has not even responded to the calls of petitioner since then.

9. Perusing the contents of complaint would clearly reveal

that initially the petitioner has allegedly followed the respondent

No.2 and has also sexually harassed her without her consent.

Further, on the pretext of marrying the respondent NO.2, the

petitioner has allegedly demanded huge amounts to the family

of respondent No.2 and it is also seen that there was exchange

of huge amounts on several occasions between the petitioner

and the family members of respondent NO.2. That apart, after

receiving certain amounts, the petitioner abruptly left his place

and shifted to Hyderabad and is also ignoring to respondent to

the phone calls of respondent NO.2.

SKS,J

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 1, whereunder, in paragraph

No.10 it was categorically held as under:

"10. From the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court, it appears that the High

Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,

the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the

High Court was considering the applications against

the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial

Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or

quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is

not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court

in the common impugned judgment and order has

observed that the charges against the accused are not

proved. This is not the stage where the

prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to

prove the charges. The charges are required to be

proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led

by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore,

the High Court has materially erred in going in detail

in the allegations and the material collected during the

course of the investigation against the accused, at this

stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the

Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is available

to proceed further against the accused for which the

accused is required to be tried or not."

11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, 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 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."