Seems Srivastava, And Another v. The State Of Telangana, And Another

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8207 OF 2021 Between:

1. Seems Srivastava, And Another, W/o Mayur Chander Srivastav , Aged about It/tajor years, Occ. Housewife , Rlo 5-5-212 15t283 ,Baalaji enclave , Fiat No 402 , B-Block Gandhi Bhavn , Near Aadab Hotel , Patelnagar , Hyderabad.

2. Swetha Asthana, W/o. Abhishek Asthana , Aged about 29 years , Occ Housewife, Rl/o, Flat No. 301, MashallaApts Prasantnagarcolony,Banglaguda jagir Hyderabad. T.S

...Petitioner/Accused 4 & 5

AND 1 . The State of Telangana, And Another, Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

2. Shivani Bhatnagar, W/o. Vijayraj Bhatnagar 1-4-216 , Kothapet Occ. Housewife, Rachakonda.

,,.Respondents Petition under Section 482 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 call for the record relating to C.C. No.6722 of 2021 .on the file of On the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar and quash the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 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 Stay all further Proceeding to C.C. No.6722 ot 2O21,on the file of on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad At L.B. Nagar and quash the same in respect of the petitioners / Accused No. 4 and 5. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prodecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HOIVBLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIl,lIllAL PETITIO N No.82O7 of 2O2L ORDER:

/ This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6722 of 202L on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, wherein cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 4984 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'D.P.Act'). 2.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners/A.4 and A.5, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1State and perused the record. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 would contend that the allegations made against the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 do not constitute the offences under Section 49BA of IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. It is further submitted that charges are not yet framed by the trial Court in the subject C.C. and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for. 4.

It is pertinent to state that since charges are not yet framed by the trial Court in the subject C.C. and a hearing is contemplated before charges are framed, the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 are entitled to raise all the grounds before the trial Court that are proposed to be raised herein. According to Sections 239 and 240 Cr,P.C, if the Magistrate, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 773 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as he thinks necessary and after giving the

prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. Conversely, if the Magistrate finds that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by him, shall frame charge in writing against the accused. Therefore, the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 can file comprehensive application/s under Section 239 Cr.P.C before the trial Court raising the grounds to terminate the proceedings. If there are no grounds to frame charges, the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 are entitled for discharge, in accordance with law. It is for the trial Court to record a finding to that effect.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again deprecated the practice of invoking the inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when an effective and efficacious remedy is available to the accused before the trial Court' The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is required to be exercised with abundant caution and care. In the given circumstances of the case, when an effective and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 under a particular provision of law, it ls not appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr,P.C.

5.

With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand clos SD/.T.SRINIVAS Fe.- //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRA SECTION OFFTCER \ To, I 3 $:t0iil';iir,H,iai:i$##ffi :i"{.':,rvsl;::':;"};il"' Hvderabad [OPUC] Two CD Copies One SPare CoPY \+, KNK l'R

HIGH COURT DATED:1211112021 1$E srAl-€ o (

ORDER

CRLP.No.8207 of 2021 \ a) .l r: ll ,1DE{:2$?1 \.ie..

\.

i( .:

t )t-:, \..:.-r--,"-''

CRIMINAL PETITION IS CLOSED 2-1 )/\