Dr.Pothireddy Stirendranath Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2041 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2041 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2025

Telangana High Court

Dr.Pothireddy Stirendranath Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 February, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.78 OF 2021

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash

C.C.No.376 of 2018 on the file of learned XVII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered in

Cr.No.455 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section

506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr.Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Nazeer Khan, learned

counsel representing Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 5-7-2017,

P.S.Jubilee Hills received a complaint from the

2nd respondent/complainant stating that he has only one

daughter by name Ganga Bhavani and he performed her

marriage with the petitioner herein/Dr.Surendernath

Reddy, during negotiation the petitioner demanded an EVV,J

amount of Rs.1,00,00,00/- towards dowry and he paid an

amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. After marriage, the petitioner

and his parents harassed the daughter of the 2nd

respondent. The daughter of complainant had filed DVC

and 498-A case against the petitioner/accused. While

things stood thus, allegedly the petitioner herein started

sending message through what's app to the complainant's

mobile number 9951133333 demanding to withdraw the

cases filed against him by sending abusive message in filthy

language and threatened with dire consequences.

4. Basing on complaint filed by the 2nd respondent,

Police have registered a case in crime No.455 of 2017, dated

5-7-2017 against the petitioner for the offence punishable

under section 506 of I.P.C and filed charge sheet vide

C.C.No.376 of 2018 before the learned Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended

that the investigation conducted by the police did not reveal

that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section

506 of IPC. The police, without conducting the investigation EVV,J

properly, filed the charge sheet with all false and baseless

allegations. He further contended no case is made out against

the Petitioner herein as the charge-sheet does not reveal any

specific allegation other than vague and bald allegations.

There is no specific overt act attributed to the Petitioner

herein. In support of his contention he relied upon the

decision rendered by the Apex Court in

Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seethan

and another 1, wherein the Apex Court held that "where the

averments in the complainant read on its face, do not disclose the

Ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the penal code,

it amounts to abuse of process of law."

6. He further relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex

Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 2, wherein

certain guidelines were issued for the exercise of these powers

by the Courts. In guideline No.3 it was laid down that where

the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint

and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and do not make out a

(2019) 3 Scale 567

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 EVV,J

case against the accused, the Court may quash the F.I.R. as

well as the investigations. A note of caution was added by

observing that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding

should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and

that too in the rarest of rare cases. It was held that the Court

would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

in the F.I.R. or the complaint. In support of his contention he

relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in

Swapan Kumar Guha and others 3,

para 21 of the judgment laid down in no uncertain terms that the police has no unfettered discretion to commence investigations under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their right of Inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R. prima-facie discloses the commission of such offence. It was held that if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigations on the basis of Information as laid or received. In para 22. of the same judgment, it was further observed that unlimited discretion to the police in the sphere of investigations can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. Therefore, the power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code.

(1982) 1 SCC 561 EVV,J

Hence, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2

vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and contended that allegations

leveled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and

the police, after conducting the investigation, have filed the

charge sheet, unless and until a full-fledged trial is

conducted, truth cannot be elicited and interference of this

Court at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore,

they prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.