Madishetti Kistaiah, S/O. Venkataiah, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6187 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.187 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners after receipt of the notice in O.P. No.150 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Karimnagar filed by accused No.1 for divorce against the second respondent. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. The record further reveals that the marriage of the second respondent was performed with accused No.1 on 15.5.2013 at Karimnagar as per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the second respondent gave Rs.6,00,000/- cash, fifteen tulas of gold, furniture and household

articles worth Rs.20,000/- and motor cycle worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners and accused No.1 towards dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioners subjected the second respondent to cruelty both physically and mentally.

4.

While deciding the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the second respondent foisted the present case as a counter-blast to O.P. No.150 of 2016 or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gurajat3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold. 6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 (2014) 15 SCC 221 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273

Jammikunta Police Station, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C., in Crime No.187 of 2017 so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned.

7.

With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J July 26, 2017.

YS