Telangana High Court
Mohammed Hameed Ul Zafar vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9113 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9 seeking to quash
the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2638 of 2021
pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri Mohd Muzaferuulah Khan, learned
counsel for petitioners, Sri E. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1-State and Sri Rehan Abdul Khader, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material
available on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the victim
married accused No.1 on 23.04.2015 and at the time
of marriage, the parents of the victim gave 40 tulas of
gold ornaments and some cash to accused No.1 as
dowry. When accused No.1 left to canada after 15 days
2 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
of marriage, the other accused, who are in-laws of the
victim, used to harass the victim mentally and
physically and also used to threaten her with dire
consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, a
case was registered vide Crime No.12 of 2016 before
the Humayunnagar Police, Hyderabad and pending the
said crime, the father of the victim lodged another
complaint against the accused persons with same
allegations vide Crime No.142 of 2016 before the
Habeebnagar Police, Hyderabad. It is stated that after
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed
vide C.C. No.2638 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
420, 382, 406, 109 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the D.P. Act by clubbing the two crimes i.e., Crime
No.12 of 2016 and Crime No.142 of 2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly
submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are
no specific allegations against the petitioners. He
3 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
secondly submitted that though there is no
corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences,
the petitioners are implicated in the case with false
and fabricated allegations. He thirdly submitted that
the entire state of allegations is unclear including the
dates and circumstances of the payments made to the
accused. He lastly submitted that the petitioners have
no role in the marriage life of the victim and accused
No.1 and in this regard, he placed reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Neelu Chopra and
another Vs.Bharti 1, Geetha Mehrotra and another
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 and also
Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of Telangana
and another3 and prayed the Court to allow the
Criminal Petition.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the trial
(2010) 1 SCC (Crl) 286
(2012) 10 SCC 741
2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1162
4 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
has to be conducted in order to elicit the true facts of
the case, therefore, quashing the proceedings against
the petitioners, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he
prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submitted that since the allegations levelled
against the petitioners are serious in nature and the
trial is yet to be commenced, the continuation of
proceedings before the trial Court is necessary to come
to right conclusion. Hence, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by both
the parties, this Court has perused material evidence
available on record. As per the averments of the
complaint, the petitioners despite taking amounts from
the victim by promising to take visa for travelling to
her husband place i.e., canada, they failed to fulfil
their promise and threatened her with dire
consequences and snatched away her ornaments. It is
5 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
pertinent to note that except the above allegation,
there are no specific allegations against the petitioner
Nos.4 to 7 and they are no way concerned with the
matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the
victim.
8. For better appreciation of the facts of the case,
it is relevant to note that while dealing with matters
arising out of similar circumstances, the Apex Court in
the judgments of Neelu Chopra (Supra 1), Geetha
Mehrotra (Supra 2) and Dara Lakshmi Narayana
(Supra 3), categorically held that so far as in the
matrimonial disputes that misuse of legal provisions
cannot be continued in the absence of specific
allegation.
9. In the instant case, prima facie, it is apparent
that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific
allegations against the petitioner Nos.3 to 7. Further,
there is no incriminating evidence to prove the alleged
offences. Hence, this Court, having respectful
6 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
agreement with the decision of the Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgments and also considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances, is of the considered opinion
that that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose
would be served as there are no other specific
allegations against the petitioner Nos.4 to 7.
10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the
petitioners has restricted his prayer only to the extent
of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 before the trial Court as they are senior citizens
suffering with old age ailments.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly
allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the
petitioner Nos.4 to 7 in C.C.No.2638 of 2021 pending
on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A), 420, 382, 406, 109 of the IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act., are hereby
quashed. However, the proceedings against the
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2638 of 2021 pending
7 EVV,J
CRLP_No.9113_2023
on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A), 420, 382, 406, 109 of the IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act., shall be
continued. Further, the trial Court is directed to
dispose of the C.C. in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3
after hearing both the parties. Further, the
appearance of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 before the
trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is
specifically required during the course of trial, subject
to the condition of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being
represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 05.02.2025
FM
