AHMEDKHAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C '), is filed by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.95 of 2021 on the file of CCS, DD, Women Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C.

(2.) As per the complaint of the 2nd respondent, dated 30.01.2021, the allegations against the petitioners herein are as follows:

(3.) Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent is a matrimonial dispute and the police on receipt of complaint, dated 30.01.2021, at 13:30 hours registered a case immediately without following the guidelines issued by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P and others W.P.No. (Crl.)No.68 of 2008 more particularly guidelines in paragraph 111 of the said Judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in matrimonial disputes/family disputes, the police have to conduct preliminary inquiry and without conducting the same, the police have registered the present crime immediately. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. The marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent was performed on 09.09.2016 and she left Kuwait in the month of June, 2019. She is suffering with Abscess with seizures since two years. In proof of the same, Pathlabs report, dated 09.08.2018 has been filed. By referring to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent is already suffering with the said disease and therefore, the question of 2nd respondent suffering with the said problem due to the alleged harassment by the petitioners does not arise. There are no specific overt acts against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein. The 2nd petitioner is aged about 65 years, 3rd petitioner is aged father, aged about 71 years and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are married sisters of the 1st petitioner. By referring to the copy of passport of accused No.4, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused No.4 is not residing in India and she is residing in Kuwait. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the marriages of petitioner Nos.4 and 6 were performed long back, they are staying with their own families and they are nothing to do with the matrimonial life of 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. Even then, the 2nd respondent has implicated the entire family in a false case. There are no specific overt acts against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein. By referring to the principle laid down by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the Judgment in Anupriya Pal and others v. Sate of U.P [Crl.A.No.994 of 2018, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1823 of 2017], learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent therein has implicated the entire family of the 1st petitioner therein to take revenge on the husband therein. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No.95 of 2021 against the petitioners herein.