KAKKIRENI RAVI SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(2.) Perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the daughter of respondent No.2 was performed on 11.07.2017. It appears that thereafter matrimonial disputes arise between them. Respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein with Danthalapally Police Station making several allegations against them.

(3.) Perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, aged parents of petitioner No.1 are general in nature. There are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer including the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint dtd. 09.09.2021. Considering the fact that there are matrimonial disputes between petitioner No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in the matter, like this, this Court vide order dtd. 09.11.2021 directed the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps including the arrest of the petitioners, and investigation may go on.