P. VANDANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by name P.Vandana, Teacher, no other than married sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant is A.3 among 5 accused viz: husband-A.1, mother-in-law-A.2, residents of Tarnaka and another married sister-in-law-A.4, resident at paradise area and father-in-law-A.4 of defacto-complainant respectively in C.C.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, outcome of crime No.78 of 2018 of WPS, Begumpet dt.09.04.2018 registered for the offences punishable u/sec.498-AIPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act(for short, 'the DP Act'), and the police after investigation filed chargesheet by not charging the A.4 supra but for others among A.1 to A.5 by examination of four witnesses including the defacto-complainant as L.W.1, her mother as L.W.2, their family friend as L.W.3 from which the learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offences supra.

(2.) It is impugning the same, the petitioner-A.3 filed quash petition with the contentions that she is unnecessarily and falsely roped with on vague, frivolus, fictitious and malicious allegations without basis in order to harass and trouble her and the police also without proper investigation and with no prima facie material charged her that too having deleting her other sister(A.4) from the charge sheet, that she has nothing to do with them and there was no occasion to her to ill-treat the defacto-complainant, that after marriage of defacto-complainant with the A.1 they are living separately with the family of her parents with no cordial relationship. Thereby the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate on police report is unsustainable, hence to quash the proceedings against her in the Calander Case supra.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-A.3 reiterated the same. Whereas, it is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-defacto-complainant that there is prima facie accusation against the petitioner/A.3 along with others in the offences alleged against them, hence there is nothing for this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.