Rasheeda Hurmath v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9142 of 2015 Between:

Rasheeda Hurmath and 2 others ..... PETITIONERS/A2, A4 & A5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9142 of 2015 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.229/2015 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A IPC and under sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A2, A4 & A5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. It is alleged that the non-petitioner/A1 is the husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave sufficient dowry, gold jewelry and other articles.

Being dissatisfied with the said dowry, the non-petitioners/A1 and the petitioners herein being motherin-law, brother-in-law and father-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant subjected her to cruelty to meet their unlawful demands. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioners/A2, A4 & A5, prima facie, reveal the commission of offences, as alleged. I feel that it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be quashed. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be decided during course of trial. This Court is not supposed to make a roving enquiry into the allegations made in the charge sheet. I absolutely see no valid ground to quash the charge sheet. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the relationship of the petitioners/A2, A4 & A5 with the family of the non-petitioner/A1 and the de facto complainant, the Court below is directed not to insist for the presence of the petitioners/A2, A4 & A5 for each and every adjournment, unless it feels that their physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

__________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Date: 12.10.2015 Dsr