AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1535 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “DP Act”).
Heard the submissions of Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.
The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners herein are the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and that the complaint points out omnibus allegations against the petitioners and that they stayed separately from the family of the de facto complainant and hence, the offences are not attracted towards the petitioners herein. Learned counsel relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. The State of Telangana1 and also Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana2 prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are specific allegations revealed from the statement of panchayath elder and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Perused the record.
LW4/Siddala Krishna is the panchayath elder and his statement points out specific allegations against the petitioners herein that they used to abuse the de facto complainant in filthy language and also used to provoke the husband of the de facto complainant to beat her. It is also pointed out that there were four panchayaths held, inspite of which the harassment continued. The veracity of the witnesses is a matter to be tested during the course of trial.
In Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supra), the respondent No.2/wife used to leave the matrimonial home uninformed and on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police complaint and when the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants and the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on her own. In that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants the proceedings need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed. Thus the facts of the present case differ from the above cited decision and hence the same is not applicable.
Therefore, in view of the above held discussion and in the light of the decision, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The truth shall be un aveled during the course of trial, hence, it is not proper to interfere with the judicial process at this stage.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically required by the trial Court during the course of trial, provided that they shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.