Ramdasi Vijaya Krishna v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-19. Ramdasi Vijaya Krishna v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17175 OF 2025 Between: Ramdasi Vijaya Krishna, Sio. Ramdasi Kalyan Maharaj Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Veda Prayanam, R/o. H. No. 6-85, Near Ramlayam Temple, Kohir Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, at Hyderabad. Through PS, Women Sanga Reddy District. 2. Smt. Ramdasi Nisha, Wo. Ramdasi Vijaya Krishna, D/o. Narsinha Joshi, Aged about 27 yrs, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Mu. PO. Holsumadra Taluk-Aurad, Holesamudra, Bidar District-karnataka,585417 ... RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COM PLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the CC.
No129 ot 2025, on the file of I Addl Junior Civil judge -Cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy, offence under section 498-A, of lPC, section 3 & 4 of DP Act, against the Petitioner herein. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of CC No. 129 of 2025, on the file of I Addl Junior Civil judge-Cum Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy, under sections 498-A, of lPC, section 3 & 4 of DP Act, against the Petitioner herein lncluding appearance during the pendency of the present quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dasari Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER I . f IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17175 of 2025 Date:19. 12. 2025 Between: Ramdasi vijaya Krishn .. petitioner AND The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, at Hyderabad. Through PS, Women Sanga Reddy District and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is frled by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 129 of 2025 on the frle of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy. 2. Heard Mr. Dasari Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Pubiic Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. , I t 3.
Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made either in c the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Section 498-4 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196l (for short 'DP Act') are not attracted against the petitioner. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No. 2 herself left the matrimonial house of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 on 02. 09. 2022, and based on the same, Crime No. l28 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 294-8,323, 427 ar. d 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira.
When the said proceedings were pending, respondent No. 2 lodged the present complaint by making omnibus allegations. The petitioner never harassed respondent No. 2 nor demanded any additional dowry. Respondent No. 2 has also filed D. V. C. No. 4 of 2025 by impleading the petitioner and all his family members. The petitioner approached this Court and filed Crl. P. No. 16753 of 2025, and this Court, while ordering notice before admission, dispensed with the appearance of the petitioners therein before the trial Court. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. / 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specihc allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Investigating Offrcer, after recording the statements of L. Ws. 1 to 10, has filed the final report, wherein the role of the petitioner is specifically mentioned.
Whether- the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be decided after a full-fledged trial. Basing on the grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of L. Ws. 1 to 10, has filed the hnal report. ln their statements, they have specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, in her complaint as well as in her statement under Section 16l Cr. P. C. , has specifically mentioned the allegations against the petitioner so as to athact the ingredients of the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The grounds raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which have to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledged t I trial.
This Court does not find any ground to quash the C. C. 7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner/accused in C. C. No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the leamed I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magishate of First Class, Sanga Reddy 8. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the leamed counsel for petitioner. 9. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner in C. C. No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the leamed I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.
[n the event of non-appearance of petitioner on any date so fixed by the kial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I I o //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I T,r, 1 The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy. 2 The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Sangareddy District. C. *a-for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad [OUT] Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Dasari Krishna Reddy, 5. Two CD CoPies I Ir HIGH COURT . ,SRJ DATED: 1911212025 THE S ( i () t! \ 1 1 v 3 r[8 2026 ORDER I \ * CRLP. No. 17175 of 2025 St]4, CRL. P IS DISMISSED --i-- ) KS zaf tlze
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.