Dareddy Seetharamireddy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2309 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2309 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

Dareddy Seetharamireddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2024

         THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
            CRIMINAL PETITION No.10873 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

S.C.No.302 of 2017 pending on the file of XXI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short 'the IPC').

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

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

Police Station, stating that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as

'deceased') was married to petitioner/accused No.1 and at the

time of marriage, Rs.3 lakhs cash, two tolas gold and utensils

were given towards dowry. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner

and deceased were blessed with two children. It is alleged that

since the day of marriage, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been

harassing the deceased in relentless manner and he used to

demand additional dowry time and again. It is alleged that the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023

brother of petitioner who is accused NO.2 used to consistently

instigate petitioner against the deceased. On 14.07.2015 at

about 6 P.M., the respondent No.2 received a phone call

informing him about the death of his daughter and her two

children. When he rushed to the house of petitioner/accused

No.1 he found his daughter dead lying on a bed and in another

room two children were also dead. Alleging that petitioner is

responsible for the death of the deceased, the said complaint

was lodged.

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

matter and on completion of due investigation, a charge sheet

was filed against the petitioner, arraying him as accused No.1

and his brother as accused No.2. Aggrieved thereby, this

Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 praying to

quash the proceedings initiated against him.

4. Heard Sri D.Sudershan, learned counsel for

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

Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent - State. No

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the

petitioner is falsely implicated in the case by his father in law

and contended that except alleging in a vague manner that on

instigation of accused No.2, the petitioner committed crime, no

other credible information such as specific overt act, date time

and place attributing specific role of petitioner, is stated by

respondent No.2. He asserted that the proceedings against the

accused No.2 are discharged vide order dated 26.04.2022

passed in Crl.RC.No.1788 of 2018 and that being so, even

petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to obtain the benefit of

discharge as false allegations are leveled against him without

any supporting material evidence or witness. He affirmed that

the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint

averments are baseless and vague and the offence under

Section 304-B of IPC does not constitute against the petitioner.

Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

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

that as per the complaint averments and the charge sheet

averments, the petitioner/accused No.1 is allegedly responsible

for three death and the matter being of serious nature, the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023

proceedings against him cannot be quashed at this stage as the

matter requires trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss

the petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going

through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the

averments of the complaint, the petitioner/accused No.1 used to

harass the deceased and demand additional dowry. It is seen

that the wife of petitioner/accused No.1 died within 7 years of

marriage and their children were also found dead in another

room.

8. At this stage, it is imperative to mention 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 offence against the accused persons, as alleged

by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is

held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10873 OF 2023

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."

9. In the present case, it is noted that though learned

counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 contends that the case is

based on vague allegations, it is pertinent to note that the