Yanala Sarojana and another v. The State of Telangana and another
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-28. Yanala Sarojana and another v. The State of Telangana and another. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
,/. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CR IMINAL PETITION NO: 6482 OF 2020 Betwee n: 1. Yanala Sarojana , W/o. Amrutha Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Kotapahad village, Atmakur (s) Mandal, Suryapet District. 2. Yanala Poolamma, W/o. lr/alla Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kotapahad village, Atmakur (s) Mandal, Suryapet District. ... Petitioners/Accused AND 1. The State of Telangana, Through S. H. O, Atmakur (S) Police Station , represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad. 2. Dawarath Samba, S/o. Mancha, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o. Jagni Thanda, H/o. of Kotapahad (V), Atmakur (S), Suryapet District. ... Res po n de nts/C om pla in a nt Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.
C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 46 of 20'18 on the file of Police Station Atmakur (S), Suryapet, for the offences U/s. 306 of IPC against the petitio ners/a ccu sed herein. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of Certified copy of the Crime No. 46 of 2018 on the file of Police Station Atmakur (S), Suryapet, for the offences U/s. 306 of lpC and accepl the Xerox copy of the same. l. A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under section 482 of cr. p. c praying that in the circumstances stated in the fvemorandum of Grounds of petition, criminal the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused herein in crime No.
46 of 2018 on the fire porice of station Atmakur (S), Suryapet, for the offences U/s. 306 of lPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of the Respondent No. 2 not appearing in person or by Advocate. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6482 of 2020 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr. p. C. seeking to quash the Crime No. 46 of 20 1g on the file of the Station House Officer, Atmakur police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offence punishabre under section 306 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos. l & 2 along with one Erupula Mangamma. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent _ State and perused the material placed on record. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the criminal petition is taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing in the virtual Court today, i. e. 2g. 12. 2020. 4 ' The learned counser for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent/d e facto complainant has mentioned the name of the petitioners in the complaint lodged with first respondent police authoriry, though the petitioners are no way connected with the self_help group. The Iearned counsel would further submit that inasmuch as the petitioners are no way connected with the self-help group, the petitioners could not have played any role in abetting the deceased to commit suicide, as complained of by the defacto complainant.
Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely foisted in the above crime and thus prays for quashing of the FIR registered. --. _- 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor' on the other hand' only under the the FIR was registered would submit that initiaily upon learning that IPC. Section 306 Subsequently' provisions of Caste Tribe the / is a member of the Scheduled ' the deceased provisions of SCs & STs (POA) invoked the authority respondent of Scheduled Section 3 (2)(v) and the provisions of Act.
1989, Act, 1989 of Attrocities) rribes (prevention castes and Scheduled (for short 'SCs & STs (POA) ActJ is also added in the FIR' The a submit that would further Prosecutor learned Additional Fubiic of out the involvement of the complaint itself would bring reading iearned Additional Thus' the crime' in abetting the the petitioners exceptional is not an that this would submit Public Prosecutor under powers conferred the inherent exercise this Court to case for being and is registered to quash the crime 482 of Cr'P'C' Section authority' into by the respondent investigated would also draw Pubic Prosecutor 6.
The iearned Additional by the rendered judgment the Court to of this the attention of Glti*rdt case of S'M' Datta t't' stqte Court in the Hon'ble Apex FIR pentsat of "rf a heid that' it was 659] wherein (2007) 1 SCC lou broadlg of offence euen ' of the commission disclosure leads to Tle of tle potice' the pisdiction usurping from courts are bated rtLith the to proceed be permitted should autlaitg inuestigating would Prosecutor Public Additional The learned inuestigation'' that it is go to show would perusal of the complaint that a submit the to take deceased that forced the of petitioners' the conduct public Addidonal Learned her life ' step of ending extreme matter in the investigation that the submit would also prosecutor police authority first respondent as the stage' is in advance examined 12 witnesses and recorded their statements and shortly, the investigating authority is going to file the charge sheet in the matter before the concerned I trial Court. 7.
Having regard to the submissions made as above and considering the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioners rejate to abetting for committing suicide and charged under Section 306 IpC read with Section 3 (2)(v) otSCs & STs (pOA) Act and hav. ing regard to the law laid down in S. ff. D@rr@,s case (supra. ), as reiterated in the case of Tarq. mant po. rakh u. Stqte of Madhga pradesh and others (2OtS) II SCC 264 this Court is of the view that the present case is not one of exceptional case where this Court is required to exercise inhere: ur'erent powers under section 482 of cr. p. c 8. In view of the above, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismrssed. pendi ng miscellaneous petitions, any, sha. l. l if stand closed in the light of this final orde r. Sd/-B. S,ATYAV A ASSIST ANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY' To, oFFtcER 1 2 Iffi sration, :B:i: ln';ffiX'Bil"1r. 1turr9rice suryap", ;;::"' t v>ect-rtor, '' ' Hlgh Court for the Staie 1our1"" or reta"ngana, !
10e1{ao at 3 Babu Gandu' Advocate 4. topucl ;il? $8":i:y*" HIGH COURT TVKJ OAIED:281'1212020 e rrE s TA r€: 1 e o 2021 a 0 6 JAN r) * ORDER of 2020 CRLP. No'6482 PETITION THE CRIMINAL DISMISSING 1,ru D
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.