Aare Nagaraju And 2 Others v. The State Of Telangana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE TTITI]_ETH DAY OF DECEMBER rwo rHousANo nruo rwEr.rrv iriio PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 610 &6110F 2021 Between:

ffi f{#1:*d;#&Zi,Iffi :,15H:,:i#t1,1,,,"?,,i;Ti, Student, Natural ...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.4 AND 1.

IH,,""rrd'Jr.iilffi ;,8|.3;H,,i;i8r8Hxllfi ll:.",:fi[,suryapet fff ,X;mli#,&|,1f, ,.,,?.I;flg:,i"13ffi,t?fl id,:,:iHoueeryire, 2.

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Seclion 482 of. Cr p /- stared in the Mem ora nd u,':, :,'Jj.:'j X;;#,1'lt j:::Irff flffi:; be pl€ased to call for the re Zo2o.on the r e or *. r;:;',""':;:H1:"Jt:JTjff:I::;"r:J;:^: proceedings.

I.A. NO:1 oF 2021 Petition under Secti( star,ed in the Memorandu,':,:;T.::: ;,llf#",1il:.n,il":T:X; be pleased to grant stay of a' further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in J C'c' No. 1 15 0t 202a on the fire of the Juvenire Justice Board at Nalgonda.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.611 OF 2021 Between:

1. Aare Nagaraju, S/o Chandraiah, aged about40 years,Occ:ACTO

2. Aare lakshmi,Wo Chandraiah,aged about 65 years,Occ:household

3. Palla Nawen Kumar,S/o Saida Babu,Aged 2 years,Occ:Software Engineer ( All are R:/o Arlegudem Village, Chitkur Mandal, Suryapet District.) AND ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,2 & 3

1. Tlre State of Telan District, rep. by its gana, through S. H.O. Chilkur police Station. Survaoet HuDltc prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

Aare Mamatha, w/o Nagaralu, Aged. about 40 years, occ. Housewife, r/o Artegudem vttage, dnittui tvtEroar, su'.ya-pJb"ari.i ' ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 492 of Cr.p.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to cal for the records relating to the charge sheet in c_c.No.1g46 0f 2020,on the fire of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Kodad and quash the - proceedings.

l.A. NO:1 oF 2021 Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of a, further proceedings incruding the appearance of the petitioner in c.c.No-1946 0f 2020, on the fire of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Kodad.

These Petitions comino on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Glglnds of criminar petr:tion and upon hearing the arguments of sri CHANDRA 9J:-I1HAR. GANA'URAMU, Advocate for the p;*ie;;;ino tne pubtic prosecutor (TG) on behatf of the Resoondent No.1 and oi-iii'E.iuxn"ma Reddy,Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.61O and 611 OF 2O2L COMMON ORDER:

1. Crimina-l PetitionNo.6 1O of 2021 is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitionerlA4 io J.C.C.No.ILS of 2O2O on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda.

2. Criminal Petition No.611 of 2021 is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A,3 in CC No.1946 of 2O2O on the hle of the Judicial First Class M strate at Kodad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 435, 506 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 1 .

3.

Since both the charge sheets arise out of the same incident, both the petitions are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Order.

4.

The case of the 2d respondent is that she was married to the 1"t petitioner in Criminal Petition No.61 1 of 2021, seventeen years prior to the complaint and at the time of marriage, dowrlr was a-lso given. They led no(nal marital life

for 12 yea-rs. one son and one daughter were born. After her husband got governmentjob as School Assistant, he developed illegal intimacy with other woman. The 2nd respondent/complai,ant was a_lso harassed by her husband and her mother-in-law (A1 & A.2 in C.C.i,{o. L946 of 2O2O) for additional dowry and she was sent out of the house. Thereafter, the husband got job as ACTo. Howevei., both the husband and mother-in-law did not rnend their ways and continued to harass the 2"a respondent.

5. On |2.OZ.2O2O at about g.OO a.m, the 3.a petitioner in criminal Petition No.611 of 2o2r r,vho is related to the 1"t petitioner came to their house. When provoked by A1, the mother-in-law /A2 arrd A,3, and the son of the 2.a respondent, who is A4/petitioner in Crirninal petition No.61O of 2O2I, quarreled with her and dragged her out of the house. Both ,4,3 and his son bur,t her sarees a.nd both threatened to kilr her. Though panchayat was held in the presence of elders, none of the petitioners/accused did mend their ways, for which reason, complaint was filed.

6. On the basis of the said complaint, 3ra petitioner in Criminal Petition No.611 of 2O2l and son of the 2"d respondent in Criminal Petition No.610 of 2O2l i.e. petitioner/A4 were added as accused.

7. tearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2.d respondent having deserted her husband and son, left to her parents house by taking her daughter. After several attempts were made to get back the 2"a respondent, she joined them but started harassing her husband and mother-in-law. 2nd .

respondent on her own lelt the house and- Iodged a false - complaint. Only omnibus allegations are made and there are no overt acts that are attributed to any of the petitioners, as such, the complaint, which is hled with a malahde intention bearing grudge against her husband, proceedings have to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that there are specific allegations which are leveled against all the petitioners. In fact, there is no reason why the son would bq implicated by his mother unless

he had acted in the manner which the 2.a respondent has narrated. In the said circumstances, all the allegations have to be decided after trial and the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be considered.

Having perused the record, the alleged incident happened on 12.07.2O2O when an a-ltercation between the 2nd respondent and family members lead to the present complaint being Iiled on 13.07.2O2O. Even according to the 2nj respondent, her husband A1 was responsible for the said incident- The aliegation against the 2"d respondent's son (petitioner in Crl.P.No.61O of 2O2Ll and the relative/3.a petitioner in Criminal petition No.611 of 2O2l is that they have burnt sarees and asked her not to i:eturn to the house, failing which, she would be killed. Even though, it is stated by the 2.a respondent in her complaint that her sarees were burnt, no specific details are given regarding the incident and there is no narration as to how the incident occurred. No doubt, the mother would not be complaining against her own son. However, in the present facts of there being a strained

relationship between the 2d respondent and her husband, to see to that her husband concedes to her demands and to show dominance to put pressure on the husband, the son aged around 14 years and relative aged around 22 years were implicated.

10. For the said reasons of ttre complaint being result of matrimonial dispute between the 2"a respondent and her husband, I find that proceedings against the petitioners who \ are son and relative have to be quashed, as they were falsely implicated. However, as far as tlre husband and mbther-inlaw are concerned, there are specific allegations about harassing the 2"a respondent in her matrimonial life, both physically and mentally and also demanded additional dowry. These aspects have to be ascertained during the course of trial, for which reason, the petition {iled by the husband and mother-in-law, who are A1 and A,2 respectively in Crl.P.No.6l1 of 2O2l is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioner/A4 in JCC No.115 of 2O2O on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, ar

Nalgonda are hereby set aside and accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.61O of 2O2l is allowed.

12. The proceedings against 3.d petitioner/A3 in CC No.t946 of 2O2O on the hle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, Criminal petition No.611 of 2O2l is disposed off. As a sequel thereto, misceiianeous applications, if any pending shall stand closed. SD/- T. JAYASREE o""'"'o"trTTy //TRUE COPY// ' SEQTION,OEFICER To,

1. The Court ofthe Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda.

2. The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad.

3. The Station House Officer,Chitkur police Station,suryapet District.

4. The Additionat Judicial First Clais Magistrate Court at Kodad.

5. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. OneCC to SRt. CHANDRASEKHARGANAPURAMU ADVOCATE [OpUCl

7. One CC to SRt p. LAKSHMA REDDY, ADVOCATE IOPUC]

8. Two CD Copies pcsa \ -,Y

HIGH COURT KS, J DATED:3011212022 1HE Si4Ig COMMON ORDER /q CRLP.NoS:6i0 anci 6ii of 2021 t7 JIi,t ?u7:

1:_;

o I * D ALLOWING THE CRLP.NO.61O OF 2O2I AND DISPOSING OF T!.{E CRL.P.},!O.Gfi AF 2A21