LawSphereX

Mr. B.Sumanth Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K.SURENDER

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-09. Mr. B.Sumanth Kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE K. SURENDER cRl INAL PETITI ONN : 7809, 7894 and 8366 0F 2019 Crl. Petition No . 78O9 of 2019 : Between: 44 years' Occupation' Ms. B. Gayatri, W/o. Mr. Sabbani Durga Raj,. Aged . abort Apartments, AGB Lavout, Behind ii;;;'h;ld, l{i.. rlat r. ro. +al]-rr,ianardJr Ri6tr Chikkabanavara, Bangalore (North)' Karnataka- U#tftl;i'Ergne*ing c"li6u, 560090 . PETITIONER/ACCUSEO AND l. TheStateofTelangana,throughthePublicProsecutor,Highcourtforthe State of Telangana at HYderabad. years' Kumqr,-a99. d-q! 9^qt 2. Mrs. E. Sreeshobha, Wo. Mr. B. Sumanth 19 Occuoation. Government Emp'loyee, Ryo. H. No'2-2-1 103/9/93, New SingEe;aiil'' Nagar, Golnaki, Tilar Nagar, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT- PetitionUndersection4S2ofCr. P.

Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High co'{t m1y Pe pteasedtoquashtheproceedingsinC. C. illo. l25TTot. 2olgontheffuofthe City Criminal i"rin"O Xff f Additional Chief Merropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad Courts at NamPallY, HYderabad. l. A NO: I OF 2019 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr. P. Cprayingthatinthecircurnstances High court may be stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Pe{ition,the pi""*J t" stay tne proceedings in C. C. No. 12577 ot 20. 19 on the file of {he learned kttt eOOltiooai Chief Metropolilan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. t. A. i,lo: OF 20 PetitionunderSectbn4S2ofCr. P. Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 03. 12. 2019 passed in Crl Petition No 7809 ot 2Ol9 until further orders l-A NO oF 2020 Between: Mrs. E. Sreeshobha, Wo. Mr. B.

Sumanth Kumar, aged about 40 years, Occupation. Govemment Employee, Rl/o. H. No. 2-2-it 03/9/93, New Sangeevaiah Nagar, Golnaka, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad .. Petitioner/ Respondent No. 2l Defacto Complainant And 1 . Ms. B. Gayatri, Wo. Mr. Sabbani Durga Raj, Aged about 44 yea$, Occupation. Horr. sehold, Rl/o. Flat No. 432, Mahaveer Rich Apartments, AGd Layout, Behind Sapthagiri Engineering College, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore - (North), Karnataka- 560090 .. RespondenU petitioner / Accused No. 3 2. The State of Telangana, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad .. Respondent / Respondent No. '1 / Respondent 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 Vacate the interim orders passed in l. A No. 1 of 2019 in Crl p No. 7BO9 of 2019 Order dated 03. 12. 2019 and dismiss the main criminal petition l. A NO: 3OF 2020 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 extent the stay granted by this Hon'bte High Court in lA NO1/20i9 in' CrlP No 7809/2019 on 1311212019 until further orders l. id NO: 40F 2020 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 extent the stay granted by this Honourable High Court in l. A. No. 1/iO19 in Criminal Petition No. 7809 of 2019 on O3l12l2O2O, until further orders. I. A NO: oF 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 extent the stay granted by this Hon'ble High court in-lA No. 1/201'9 in Criminal Petition No. 7809/2019 on 3112l2O2O until further orders.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. SHASHIDHAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on b€half of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri P. Padma Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7894 OF 2019 Between: Smt. B. Vasudevi, W/o. Late B. Narayana Rao, Aged about 70 years, Occupation. Retired Employee, R/o H. No. 1-9-25211 19/2, East Parsigutta, Near Hanuman Temple, Ram Nagar, Musheerabad, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 2 AND 1 The State of Telangana, through the Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad 2 Mrs. E. Sreeshobha, Wo. Mr. B. Sumanth Kumar, aged about 40 years, Occupation. Government Employee, R/o. H. No. 2-2-1 103/9/93, New Sangeevaiah Nagar, Golnaka, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 12577 ot 2019 on the file of the Learned Xlll Addilional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad l. A NO: 1 OF 2019 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 the proceedings in C. C. No. 12577 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Narnpally, Hyderabad . l. A NO: 'l OF 2O2O 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 extend the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court in lA No. 112019 in Crl Petition No. 7894 of 2019 daled 11. 12.

2019 for further more eight weeks. I . A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal-Pelition,the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 11. 02. 2O2O passed in Crl petition No. 7894 ot 2019 until further orders !. A. NO: 3OF 2020 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 dismiss the Quash /Stay Petition fited p. in LA No. 1 of 2019 in Crl No. 7894 ol 2019. l. A" NO: 4OF 2O2O 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 10 extent the stay granted by this Hon;ble High Court in I A NO 1t2019 in CrlP NO 789412019 on 1110212020 until further orders. l. A NO: 5OF 2020 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 extent the stay granted by this Honble High Court in l. A. No. ,1/2020 in Criminal Petition No. 7894lof 2019 on 11. O2:2O2O, until further orders. O: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 extent the stay granted by this Hon'bte High Court in lA No. 1/20i9 in CrlP No. 7894/2O19 on 111212O20 until further orders. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B SHASHIDHAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Sri P. padma Rao,Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8366 OF 2019 Between: Mr. B. Sumanth Kumar, S/o. M. r: Br Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occupation.

l{araygna Private Employee, R/o Ftat No. 206, 1'-g-2OtA, fufi6;1 nppartm6nrs. nam iVagai, Hyderabad-500020. ... PETtTtONERyACCUSED No. 1 AND 1 The State of Telangana, through the public proseculor. , High Court for the sta{e ot tetangana at Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Complainant 2 Smt. E- Sreeshobha, Wo. Mr. B. Surnanlh Kumar. Occupation. Working in OU as Assitant - - Professor, Rl/o H. No. 2-2-1 10319/93, New Sahgeevaiah Nag"ai, Golnaka, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of cr. p. c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of peiition, criminal the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c. c. No. 12srr of 2o'rg o; the fire of'the Learned Xlll Additionat chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Hyderabad city criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hyderabad. l. A NO: 1 oF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of cr. p.

c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'petition,the High court miy oe pl*:"d to stay the proceedings in c. c. No. 'r2sz7 ot 2o1g on th; fire of reained Xlll Additional chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Hyderabad city criminar c;,ts,;i Nampally, Hyderabad, pending present Criminal Fetition. This Petition coming on for hearing, uport perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri g SHASHIDHAR ,Advocate for the petitioner and ttrc public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of sri p. PADMA RAo, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 Tte Court made the following COMMON ORDER: *5i+ . ,1 THE HONOURABLE SRT IUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINALP ETITION Nos. 78G) 7894 an d8366 of 2079 COMMON ORDER: Crl. P. No. 7W9 of 2OL9: Criminal Pefition is filed under Sectio n 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. p. C. ) by the petitioner/Accused No. 3 to quash the proceedings in C. C. No.

125Zl of 20t9 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. Crl. P. No. 7894 of 2Al9: Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. p. C. ) by the petitioner/Accused No. 2 to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 125Zl of 2019 on the file of the XIII Addirional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. / Crl. P. No. 8366 of 2Ol9:. Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P. C. ) by the petitioner/Accused No. 1 to quash the proceedings ln C. C. No. 125Zl of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Since petitioners in all these petitions are arrayed as accused in the same C. C number and they are seeking to quash the C.

C, all the three petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 1 - State. Perused the record. 4. The 2'd respondent filed a complaint on 1,6. M. 2019 alleging that she was married to accused No. 1 on 16. 02. 2006 and at the time of marriage the demands made by the accused were futfilled. The father-in-law was good person. However, accused E Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother_in_law and sister_in_law ignore her. Accused No. 1 was under the command of accused No. 2 and in turn aceused No. 2 was listening to accused No. 3. Jfts lna respondent was adjusting in the family. Since the 2nd respondent refused to glve salary,accused Nos. 2 and 3 bore grudge against her and did not allow her to mingle in marriages or any family occasions. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused Nos.

1 to 3 were plaruring to push her out of the matrimonial home. Accused No. 3 divided the residence wfere they were Iiving, for which she approached the Legal Services Authority for amicable solution. On 22. 08. 2079, the Legal Services Authority advised all the accused Nos. l to 3 to take 2^d respondent back home. Accused No. 1 used to repeatedly say that the house in which they were staying belongs to accused No. 2 and he was inclined to go along with 2"a respondent and stay in her parent,s house. 5. The main grievance is that she was restricted from having access to the house on 03. 01. 2019. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed a counter complaint in the Legal Services Authority and made a / false complaint that the 2. d. "rplrra". ,a was threatenihg them to do away with their life. For the said reasory she was staying with herparents from 25. 07. 2079. 6. On the basis of the said complaint, the police investigated the case and fired charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. 7.

Learned counsel for the peHtioners would submit that all the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were living separately. Accused No. 2 was pensioner and she was living on her own. Accused No. 3 is a l resident of Bangalore. Accused No. 1 had filed petition of Restitution of Conjugal l Rights, which is pending adjudication. 8. On the other hand, the leamed counsel for the respondents would submit that a false complaint was filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 agairut her that she was trying to kill them. Further, though the house was partitioned and given to accused No. 1, 1 accused No. l was not allowing respondent No. 2 to stay in the house given by accused No. 2. 9. As seen from th e complain! the main Snevance appears to be the property which stands in the name of accused No. 2. Admittedly, the house property was partitioned and given to accused Nos. 2 and 3. In the reading of the entire complaint, nowhere it is made out that the petitioners/accused Nos.

2 and 3 were in any manner harassing the respondent No. 2. Making a bald allegation that the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 were trying to send her away from the house, will not in any manner fall within the definition of cruelty. 10. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Biharl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 4g2 of Cr. p. C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of preeti Gupta v. State of Iharkhandz held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially I \ , I t t (2022) 6str. C599 (2010)7 {C667 against husband,s relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple. 72. Since the petitioners/accused Nos.

2 and 3 are living separately and never residing along with accused No. 1 and 2. d respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 3. 73. Accordingly, these Criminal petitions i. e. ,Crl. p. Nos . 7g09of 2079 and 7g94 of 2019 areallowed and the proceedings against 1 petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C. C. No. 1 l 2577 of2019 on the file of the leamed Xru Additional Chief Mebopolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad City Criminal Courrs at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. The Crl. p. No . 8366 of 2019 is dismissed and the proceedings against accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 125Z of 2079shall continue. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,shall stand closed. SD/-NAYAI. II CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGIS \ I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l. TheXlllAdditioanalChiefMetropolitanllilagistrate,Hyderabad'City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad' 2.

The Station House Officer , Wp-S, CCS, DD, Police Station' Hyderabad' at public prosecutor, for the state of Telangana 3. Two CCs to tiign court I '41[--]6d^&-ir ) 4. One CC to SRt. B SHASHIDHAR, Advocate tOpUCI 5. one CC to SRr. p. pADMA neo, haro""il'ioEuji, 6. Two CD Copies kul / q I HIGH COURT \ DATED:09l0ll2O24 E_ s -i,1. 7 (-- 1t\ /\ 7 -) \\ :) rl 2[? { () 1 5 ria IJ '! COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL PE TITION Nos: 7809, 7894 and 8366 OF 2019 ALLOWING THE ALL CRL. PEITITONS. fCV

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.