T. SURYA SATISH GOUD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Crime No.76 of 2016 on the file of Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad (6th respondent herein) and to quash the same.

(2.) The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 8th respondent herein was solemnized on 12.08.2000 and out of marriage, they were blessed with a son namely T.Suryansh Goud on 15.08.2004; that the 8th respondent abandoned the matrimonial home creating several inter se disputes and, therefore, the 1st petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012 before the Family Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery etc., After receiving the notice in the said F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012, the 8th respondent lodged a written complaint, dated 16.04.2012, against the 1st petitioner and his parents, which was registered as a case in Crime No.56 of 2012 of Women Police Station, Begumpet, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and he was initially granted interim order of not to arrest pending disposal of the anticipatory bail petition filed by him and during the pendency of the anticipatory bail petition, this Court conducted reconciliation proceedings since the 8th respondent has appeared in person and opposed the anticipatory bail and that all the efforts for reconciliation failed and thereafter this Court granted anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. The 8th respondent filed a counter along with counter-claim in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed I.A.No.54 of 2015 to implead Kutadi Srinivas and others as party respondents in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012 and the same was ordered vide orders dated 14.03.2016. It is further stated that on 19.07.2015, the 8th respondent was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad, as an inpatient vide I.P.No.276858, wherein it is mentioned that the said K.Srinivas is the husband of the 8th respondent. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed I.A.No.509 of 2015 in I.A.No.54 of 2015 in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012 for summoning the entire medical record of the 8th respondent with I.P.No.276858 and the 8th respondent filed counter affidavit and opposed the I.A. Thereafter, the 8th respondent herein filed I.A.No.575 of 2015 seeking appointment of an expert to inspect the server of Yashoda Hospital and to examine the server to the extent of entries pertaining to the admission and her treatment with I.P.No.276858 and to ascertain whether there are any modifications/tampering/manipulation of records, subsequent to her admission on 19.07.2015 and the same was allowed on 19.08.2015. On 14.09.2015, the learned Family Judge dismissed I.A.No.509 of 2015 filed by the 1st petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5089 of 2015 before this Court and by an order, dated 26.02.2016, this Court allowed the said C.R.P. It is further stated that on receipt of the notice in F.C.O.P., the 2nd respondent therein filed counter. It is also stated that the counter-affidavit filed by the 8th respondent and the counter filed by the 2nd respondent in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012 are inconsistent to each other, while the 8th respondent claims that she does not know the 2nd respondent in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012, but the 2nd respondent claimed to be their family friend and well known to the parents of the 8th respondent for the last 35 years. The discharge summary issued to the 8th respondent, dated 21.07.2015, clearly shows that she is the wife of K.Srinivas. Therefore, the 1st petitioner lodged a complaint before the police, Alwal Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.352 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 506, 504 and 420 I.P.C and the said complaint was closed on the ground of civil in nature, which is unauthorized, illegal and ab initio void.

(3.) It is also stated in the affidavit that the 8th respondent lodged a complaint, dated 13.04.2016, against the petitioners and another, before the Women Police Station, Begumpet, which was registered as a case in Crime No.76 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 506 and 109 of I.P.C. It is further stated that the said complaint is filed as a counter blast to Ex.A33-medical record of Yashoda Hospital, which was marked in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2012. The 8th respondent is habituated to file false criminal complaints not only against the 1st petitioner but also against his junior advocate colleagues. A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, dated 13.04.2015, does not fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and, therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed.