Telangana High Court

Kothapally Dayanand Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 March, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1288 OF 2021

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners herein seeking to

quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2081 of 2020, pending

on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant

marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 22.02.2019. At the time

of the marriage, the parents of de-facto complainant gave some amount

and 60 tulas of gold and 5 kg of silver to accused No.1 as dowry.

Thereafter, the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 lead their

marital life happily for some period. Later, accused No.1, along with

other accused, used to harass the de-facto complainant physically and

mentally and also used to threaten her with dire consequences for

want of additional dowry. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime

No.385 of 2019 before the Saroornagar WPS Police Station,

Rachakonda and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was

filed vide C.C.No.2081 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 506 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the DP Act.

EVV,J

3. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Sri Shaik Madar,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that except

making omnibus false allegations, no specific allegations have been

made against the petitioners by the de-facto complainant. He secondly

submitted that during the pendency of the case proceedings, petitioner

No.1 has passed away. He thirdly submitted that though there is no

corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences, the petitioners

were implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He

lastly submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the

matrimonial disputes arose between accused No.1 and the de-facto

complainant. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of

Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of

Telangana and antoher 1, and Lingapuram Papanna and others v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 and prayed the Court to

allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the

petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

1 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1108 2 2025(1) ALD (Crl.) 362 (AP)

EVV,J

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed

the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, stating that

the petitioners are conspired with accused No.1 in harassing the de-

facto complainant. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal

petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that since the charge sheet was filed after completion of the

investigation, a detailed trial has to be conducted in order to elicit the

true facts and as such, interference of this Court, at this stage, is not

warranted. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal

Petition.

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by

the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 3,

whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the

extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or

the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by

the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are

extracted as under:

"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are

1992 supp (1) SCC 335

EVV,J

taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v.

State of Uttar Pradesh 4 at paragraph No.21 held as under:

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this

(2012) 10 SCC 741

EVV,J

Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.

Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

9. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it clear that

when no prima facie case is made against the petitioners, the

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but

abuse of process of law.

10. This Court, having respectable agreement with the views taken

by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, is of the considered opinion

that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there

are no other specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the

proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Further,

EVV,J

since petitioner No.1 expired during the pendency of the case

proceedings, the Criminal Petition is abated against petitioner No.1.