Smt. Sogra Fatima 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 WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9042 of 2015 Between:

Smt.Sogra Fatima and 3 others ..... PETITIONERS/A2 to A5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9042 of 2015 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2015 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A r/w.34 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of the non-petitioner/A1 and at the time of marriage the parents of the de facto complainant gave sufficient dowry and jewelry to her in-laws, however, dissatisfied with the same, immediately after one month of the marriage, the non-petitioner/A1 and the petitioners herein started harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry and for other articles and they subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally.

The allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioners/A2 to A5, prima facie, reveal the commission of offence, 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, the Court below is directed not to insist for the presence of the petitioners/A2 to 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:30.09.2015 Dsr