MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::HYDERABAD:: CRIMINAL PETITION No.
OF 2016
( F.I.R.No. 52 of 2016 WPC, R.R.Dist.at Hq.)
Between:Silvanathan D. C. Rajan @Rajan Silvanathan, S/o Devadass, Aged 40 years, Private Employee, #88, S K Estates, Yapral, J.J. Nagar, Hyderabad. . ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. State of Telengana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Through W.P.C., R.R. Dist. Hq., Hyderabad. 2. Margaret Mangala Deepa, W/o. Rajan Silvanathan, H.No.5-27, Ramidi Bhoomreddynagar, Saroornagar, Cyberabad. …Respondents The address of the Petitioners for the purpose of service of all notices of process is that of their counsel, M/s. Ch. Samson Babu, Victoria Chambers, JN Road, Abids, Hyderabad – 500001. The address for the service of summons and notice on the above named Respondents is the same as mentioned above in the Cause Title. Brief facts of the case:The present petition is filed in this Honourable High Court under section 482 of Cr.PC to quash FIR No. 52/2016, registered in Women PS, Rangareddy Dist.,
u/s 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and
referred to the court of Honorable IX MM, Cyberabad, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy Dist., Telangana State.
01.
The Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No 1 in the above-mentioned case for
the offences punishable under sections 498- A of IPC and Sec. 3and 4 of D.P. PAct. The Complaint was registered as FIR 52/2016, on 09/3/2016.
02.
The complaint is made by the defacto complainant who is the wife of
the Petitioner, against Petitioner, his Father, mother and his sisters. Who are arrayed as A2 to A5. in Crl.P. 4040/2016, this Hon’ble High Court directed the Respondents not to arrest them. 03. a) The marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner
took
place on 11/1/2012 at Secundrabad . Thereafter, the defacto complainant cohabited with the Petitioner for a short period that is from 11/1/2012
to 23/4/2012
Thereafter, she left to her parent’s place and since then she did not return to her marital house. (b) it is humbly submitted that the defacto complainant got conceived during her stay at the Petitioner’s place but she did not inform anyone about the same and it was informed to the family members and Petitioner that a baby girl was born to her but died on 25/10/2012. The petitioner was put in dark about all these things for the reasons best known to the defacto complainant and her family members. Umpteen times, request letters were sent to the second respondent to return back to the marital house but however she was reluctant and did not care for the request and as well as the notices sent to her . It is pertinent to mention here that during August 2012 and October 2012 and as well as in the first week of January 2013 and as well as in March 2014, the elders and the mediators went to the house of the second respondent’s parents and requested that she be sent back to the Petitioners home to cohabit with the A 1 however there was no response forthcoming and hence a legal notice was sent to her on 3/4/2014 followed by 21/5/2014, 5/7/2014 and on 1/6/2015 . Copies of the said notices were marked to her Counsel also some notices were received by her while other notices were refused by her. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has sent a request that all her belongings maybe returned to her. Since the key of the locker is with her a registered notice was sent to her informing her and her counsel to visit the petitioner’s house and to take back her belongings. There was no response whatsoever to the said letter.
c) Curiously during October 2015, she approached the District Court at Ranga Reddy district and filed O.P.No. 1341/2015, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage and grant of divorce under the ground of desertion and cruelty. The matter was heard by the District Court on 26/10/2010 and now it is at the stage of Conciliation before the Courts commission. The case was heard for the last time on 5/3/2016. Since the defacto complainant did not cooperate with the court commission, the Commissioner has thought it fit to return to the court with endorsement that the defacto complainant is not cooperating. (d) it is submitted that in the Petition copy filed before the District Court for the dissolution of the marriage she averred that he was taunted by the family members stating that she is not up to the expected standards and they could have a better choice for marriage with Petitioner. She further averred that as and when she asked for money she was taunted. But for this there was not a whisper either on the demand of dowry or on treating her cruelly. She filed the OP in the District Court on 13/8/2015 in the petition she did not make a mention
about the dowry or
cruelty but curiously she approaches the women police station at Ranga Reddy district and files the complaint and 9/3/2016 after seven months after filing the OP for dissolution of the marriage even in this complaint she did not make any mention that either Petitioner or the other accused , A 2 to A 5 has ever demanded any money as dowry or treating her cruelly for the sake of dowry. It is to be noted that she left the house of the Petitioner on 3/4/2012. She filed a petition for divorce on 13/8/2015 at no point of time there was any averment from here that money was demanded as dowry by either A1 are by the Petitioners here. In the above circumstances, even assuming that the entire complaint is taken as true, for the sake of arguments, even then the provisions of 498-A and section 4 to 6 of the D P Act are not attracted. Hence, the petition is liable to be quashed. Hence the petitioner, is constrained to approach this Honourable court for seeking to quash the F I R since legal process is set into motion by the defacto complainant in order to harass them, for the following GROUNDS 1)
That the averments of the De- facto complainant expressly manifest with
malafides and the legal process is set into motion by her in order to harass the petitioner, who is innocent law abiding citizen.
2)
That assuming the averments of the complaint are true, without conceding
and for argument sake, even then the provisions of section 498 –A of IPC and sections 4 to 6 of D.P. Act are not attracted in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, since admittedly, the defacto complainant never cohabited with Petitioner. 3)
That the Honourable Supreme Court in the Judgement reported in AIR 1992
SC page 604 held that where the allegation made in the 1 st information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused , is liable to be quashed. 4)
That the complaint is made by the de facto complainant with the intention of
subjecting the petitioners to un- due hardship which is expressly manifest and the true facts and later developments were not brought to the trial Court. 5) That the malaifide intentions of the second respondent are expressly manifest since she has already filed a petition for divorce in the District Court in OP No. 1341/2015 on 13/8/2015 and after she refused to take part in the conciliation proceedings before the court commission, she has chosen to file the present complaint on 9/3/2016 which is nothing but an afterthought or to boost up her case in the OP. 6) Such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. For the foregoing reasons, it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to FIR No. 52/2016 on the file of W.P.S., at LB Nagar, Rangareddy Dist ( Hq) ,Telangana State and quash the same against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Section 498 –A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in circumstances of the case. In the above circumstances it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be ple3ased to stay all further proceedings in FIR No: 52/2016 on the file of W.P.S, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy Dist (Hq) ,Telangana State pending the quash petition and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper at the interest of justice. Hyderabad Dt. 26.03.2016
COUSNEL FOR THE PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :HYDERABAD Crl.P. M.P. NO.
OF 2016
IN CRIMINAL PETITION
OF 2016
(F I R No. 52/2016 of WPS, Ranga Reddy District)
Between:Silvanathan D. C. Rajan @Rajan Silvanathan, S/o Devadass, Aged 40 years, Private Employee, #88, S K Estates, Yapral, J.J. Nagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND 1. State of Telengana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, Through W.P.C., R.R. Dist. Hq., Hyderabad. 2. Margaret Mangala Deepa, W/o. Rajan Silvanathan, No.5-27, Ramidi Bhoomreddynagar, Saroornagar, Cyberabad. ...Respondents
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR No: 52/2016 on the file of W.P.S., Cyberabad, at LB Nagar, Rangareddy Dist(Hq) ,Telangana State pending the quash petition and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper at the interest of justice.
Hyderabad. Dt.:26-03-2016.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER DISTRICT : HYDERABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD Crl.P. M.P. NO.
OF 2016
IN Crl. P. No.
of 2016
QUASH PETITION
Filed on: 28.03.2016
Filed by:-
Ch. Samson Babu (1295) Advocate Hyderabad
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :HYDERABAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.
OF 2015
( C.C. No. 878/2014 of WPC, Warangal Urban In Cr. No. 148 of 2014 ) Between:1. Yenumala Narayana Reddy, s/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, 2.Yenumala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, ( all are R/o H.No. 19-227, Jangameswarapuram, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh State.) ...Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 AND 1. State of Telengana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor Through W.P.C., Warangal Urban, Hyderabad
2. Yenumala Gayathiri, D/o. Pingali Narsi Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-6-1343, Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal district, Telangana State. ...Respondents The address of the Petitioners for the purpose of service of all notices of process is that of their counsel, M/s. Ch. Samson Babu, Victoria Chambers, JN Road, Abids, Hyderabad – 500001. The address for the service of summons and notice on the above named Respondents is the same as mentioned above in the Cause Title.
Brief fact of the case:The present petition is filed in this Honourable High Court under section 482 of CRPC to quash CC No.
878/2014, u/s 498-A, of IPC and Sec. 3
and 4 of ID Act, on the file of Honorable Ist Additional JFCMagistrate, Warangal ,Telangana State. 01. The petitioner No.1 second brother of A1 who is aged of 40 years, agricultural coolie, who is suffering with Obesity having heavy weight of 140 Kgs, and unable to move from his village and suffering with BP and other ailments, medical certificates enclosed as Doc.No.1. 02.
The Petitioner NO.2 is the third brother of A1 who is aged of 37 years who
is the husband of Accused NO.5 in this case and who’s son by name Laxminarasimha Reddy suffering with Fits/Ceizures/ episodes who have been getting medication at NRI hospital, Guntur district, hence this petitioners care and protection needed to his son, hence his personal appearance in the lower court may not be possible, his son’s medical report NRI OP, as per document NO.2. 03. It is further submits that the A1 in the above said case is the only educated person in his family who studied M.Sc.,(Chemistry) and have been working as Lecturer at Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, AP. The A1’s father by name Malla Reddy who is aged of 70 years and these petitioners are constituted as joint family and have been cultivating their agricultural land at Jangameswarapuram village. In fact after the marriage of A1 who belongs to Andhra Pradesh and Lw1 who belongs to Telangana State and due to the bifurcation of the both States and for due to the other marital problems the family disputes arosed between the Lw1 and A1 and his family members and the disputes went upto police stations and courts at Telangana. The panchyat elders between the families of Lw1 and A1 are also
raising regional discrimination of both States and have been blackmailing these petitioners to grab away their joint family properties. Hence the life of the petitioners are at stake whenever they are attending the trial court at Warangal. Hence their personal appearance may be dispensed with and allow the A1 to appear on their behalf till the disposal of the main case, the direction may be given to the trial court accordingly. 04.
It is further submits that the specific allegations against petitioner NO.1 and
4 by the defacto complainant (Lw1) in the above crime as per the complaint Dt.2210-2014 and as per 161 of Lw1 and as per the charge sheet filed by Lw7 in the above crime are as follows: a)
There are no specific allegations against this petitioner No.1 complaint
dt.22-10-2014. b)
There are no specific allegations this petitioner No.1 even as per the 161
statement of Lw1 on 22-10-2014. c)
There are no specific allegations this petitioner No.1 even as per the final
report field by Lw7, except against A1 for demand of additional dowry and harassment. But in the last sentences of the complaint the Lw1 added the names of the petitioners.
05.
It is further submits that as per the admitted facts submitted by this
petitioner that the marriage of A1 and Lw1 was performed by the family members of A1 on 14-6-2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Jangameswarapuram village of Gurajala Mandal, Andhra Pradesh with the expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- which are spent by the family members of A1. Even before the said marriage the parents of A1 presented Gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Lw1 as per their family traditions ( the receipts issued by Jewallery shop enclosed as Doc.No. 6 and 7.
After the said marriage the Lw1 and the A1 lived at
Jangameshwarapuram, Gurajala mandal, Guntur District for 12 days in the month of July 2012. As such Lw1 lived along with the petitioners at Jangameswarapuram only for 12 days. Thereafter due to Ashadamasam and due to the conceive of Lw1 she went to her parents house at Warangal August 2012 and since then she did not joined with A1 or to her in laws house to lead matrimonial life. 06.
It is submitted that the A1 also issued legal notice on 19-11-2013 to the Lw1
when she did not restitute her marital relation with A1, the office copy of the said
legal notice enclosed herewith (Doc.No.8) and the same was received by Lw1 and she also issued reply legal notice Dt.6-12-2013 with all allegations with A1 even in her reply notice she did not made any specific allegations against A1.
07.
Thereafter in the month of Dec. 2013 the Lw1 lodged complaint 4-12-
2013 against A1 before WPS Urban, Warangal and for which A1 bind himself by executing under taking letter,
the office copy of the said letter as
Doc.No. 9, later the Lw1 and A1 put up separate family and lead marital life at Piduguralla only for 10 days as per condition of under taking letter. Even at Piduguralla the panchayat was held for the matrimonial disputes of Lw1 and A1 and said panchayat the Lw1 openly refused to join with the A1 at Gurajala where the A1 had been working as Pvt. Part time Lecturer, St. Ignatius college, Gurajala. Employment letter issued by the Correspondent of the said college enclosed as Doc. No.10. Thereafter Lw1 again went to her parents home at Warangal in the month of April.2014 and not joined with A1 again till today. 08.
It is further submits that the Lw1 made a false complaint dt. 22-10-2014 in
the above crime. Which is pending for Trial on the file of Ist Addl.JFCM court, Warangal. As such Lw1 falsly implicated the above said petitioners and thereby made false allegations against them to extract the money from the family members of A1. In fact the Lw1 and her family members are not having capacity to give huge amount of Rs.30 lacks as per her reply notice 6-12-2013 or as of Rs.20 lacks and 5 thulas of gold as per the complaint Dt. 22-10-2014. As such the Lw1 gave false allegation of dowry against A1 even as per her contentions. As such as per the allegations of Lw1 against A1 for demand of additional dowry and for harassment are happened at Jangameswarapuram, Gurajala Mandal and at Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district. The Lw1 and A1 never lived together at Bhavani Nagar, Hanmkonda, Warangal district, the daughter of Lw1 and A1 by name Sathvika born on 11-3-2013 at Govt. Hospital, Hanamkonda. Even as per allegations of Lw1 she left the society of A1 on 19-4-2014 from Piduguralla when her mother and her sister came to the house of A1 at Piduguralla where the altracation took place between and then the Lw1 shund the society of A1 and not joined with him till today. 09.
It is further submits that the Lw7 the IO in the above said case not secured
and not examined any independent witnesses either from Jangameswarapuram
village where this petitioners are living or at Piduguralla where the Lw1 and A1 lived together in the house of B.Ella Rao or at Gurajala where the A1 is working. As such the entire investigation done by Lw7 is defective investigation without any jurisdiction capacity. In fact as per the allegations of Lw1 the entire alleged offences happened at Piduguralla. Hence the investigation done by Lw7 and the charge sheet field by him is a vitiated one. Hence this petitioners are entitled to quash the crime against No.1. GROUNDS 1)
That the averments of the De- facto complainant expressly manifest with
malafides and the legal process is set into motion by her in order to harass the petitioners who are innocent law abiding citizen.
2)
That assuming the averments of the complaint are true, without conceding
and for argument sake, even then the provisions of section 498 –A of IPC and sections 4 to 6 of D.P Act are not attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned, since admittedly, the defacto complainant never cohabited with Petitioners. 3)
That the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgement reported in AIR 1992
SC page 604 held that where the allegation made in the 1st information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused is liable to be quashed.
4)
That the complaint is made by the de facto complainant with the intention of
subjecting the petitioners to un- due hardship which is expressly manifest and The true facts and later developments were not brought to the trial Court.
5.
The contradictory allegations of Lw1 for giving of dowry of Rs.30 lacks as
per her reply legal notice and Rs.20 lacks as per her complaint and the demand of additional dowry amount of Rs. 5 lacks are differed. 6.
The Lw1 openly refused to join with the A1 at Gurajala where he is working.
7.
The Lw1 insisted the A1 to put up a family at Piduguralla and thereby got
separated the joint family of A1 with his family members.
8.
The Lw1 lived along with A1 hardly for one month after her marriage at
Jangameswarapuram and for one month at Piduguralla and the remaining period she lived her parents house Hanamkonda and she voluntarily deserted the society of A1 without any reason. 9.
The Lw1 have been blackmailing the A1 and his family members i.e. the
petitioners No.1 to 4 who are the joint family members and thereby insisting them with false cases to partition the joint family properties in favour of her daughter Sathvika and thereby try to grab away the properties of these petitioners and A1. 10.
The Lw7 i.e. the IO in this case not secured any independent witnesses not
examined any independent witnesses either from Jangameswarapuram village where this petitioners are living or at Piduguralla where the Lw1 and A1 lived together in the house of B.Ella Rao or at Gurajala where the A1 is working. As such the entire investigation done by Lw7 is defective investigation without any jurisdiction capacity. In fact as per the allegations of Lw1 the entire alleged offences happened at Piduguralla. Hence the investigation done by Lw7 and the charge sheet field by him is a vitiated one. 11.
Hence as per the above said grounds the entire crime against the petitioners
No.1 and 4 who are the women folk in the joint family may be quashed as there are no specific allegations against them by Lw1. Such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. For the foregoing reasons, it is prayed that this honourable High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to C.C. NO. 878/2014 on the file of Hon’ble
Ist
Petitioners
Addl. JFC Magistrate court at Warangal, registered against the
for offences punishable under Section 498 –A, 506
of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and quash the same in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in circumstances of the case. That in the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of in C.C No. 878/2014 on the file of Hon’ble Ist Addl. JFC Magistrate Court at Warangal, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit, pending Criminal Petition. Hyderabad Dt.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
NO. 1 TO 2/ACCUSED No.3 and 4
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :HYDERABAD
Crl.P. M.P. NO.
OF 2015
IN CRIMINAL PETITION
OF 2015
( C.C No. 878/2014 of WPS,Warangal)
Between:1.Yenumala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, 2.Yenumala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, ( all are R/o H.No. 19-227, Jangameswarapuram, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh State.) ...Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 AND 1. State of Telengana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor Through W.P.C., Warangal Urban, Hyderabad
2. Yenumala Gayathiri, D/o. Pingali Narsi Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-6-1343, Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal district, Telangana State. ...Respondents
That in the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of in C.C No. 878/2014 on the file of Hon’ble Ist Addl. JFC Magistrate Court at Warangal, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit, pending Criminal Petition.
Hyderabad Dt.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :HYDERABAD TRANSFER CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.
OF 2015
Between:Yenamula Balaram Reddy, s/o Malla Reddy, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Private Lecturer, R/o Jangamaheswaram village, Gurzala mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ……..Petitioner And Yenamula Gayathri, w/o Blal Ram Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-6-1343, Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal district, Telangana State. ...Respondents The address of the Petitioners for the purpose of service of all notices of process is that of their counsel, M/s. Ch. Samson Babu, Victoria Chambers, JN Road, Abids, Hyderabad – 500001. The address for the service of summons and notice on the above named Respondents is the same as mentioned above in the Cause Title AF F I D AV I T I, Yenamula Balaram Reddy, s/o Malla Reddy, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Private Lecturer, R/o Jangamaheswaram village, Gurzala Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as under:1.
I am the petitioner herein and , as such I am well acquainted of the facts of
the case and am, therefore, in a position to depose about the same. 2.
I submit that submitted my marriage
was performed with the respondent
herein in the presence of my family members and elders on 14-6-2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Jangameswarapuram village of Gurajala Mandal, Andhra Pradesh by spending an amount
of
Rs.5,00,000/- spent by my family members. Even before the said marriage my
parents presented Gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent as per their family traditions ( the receipts issued by Jewallery shop enclosed as Doc.No. 1 and 2.
After the said marriage myself
and the respondent
lived at
Jangameshwarapuram, Gurajala mandal, Guntur District for 12 days in the month
2 of
July
2012.
As
such
I
lived
along
with
the
respondent
at
Jangameswarapuram only for 12 days. Thereafter due to Ashadamasam and due to the conceive of respondent, she went to her parents house at Warangal August 2012 and since then she did not joined with me or to lead matrimonial life. 06.
It is submitted that I
issued legal notice on 19-11-2013 to the respondent
when she did not restitute her marital relation with me, the office copy of the said legal notice enclosed herewith (Doc.No.3) and the same was received by the respondent and she also issued reply legal notice Dt.6-12-2013 with all allegations with me even in her reply notice she did not made any specific allegations against me. 07.
Thereafter in the month of Dec. 2013 the respondent lodged complaint 4-
12-2013 against me before WPS Urban, Warangal and for which I bind myself by executing under taking letter,
the office copy of the said letter as Doc.No. 4, later
myself and the respondent put up separate family and lead marital life at Piduguralla only for 10 days as per condition of under taking letter. Even at Piduguralla the panchayat was held for the matrimonial disputes between me and the respondent said panchayat the respondent openly refused to join with me at Gurajala where I had been working as Pvt. Part time Lecturer, St. Ignatius college, Gurajala. Employment letter issued by the Correspondent of the said college enclosed as Doc. No.5. Thereafter the respondent again went to her parents home at Warangal in the month of April.2014 and not joined with me again till today. 08.
It is further submits that the respondent made a false complaint dt. 22-10-
2014 in the above crime. Which is pending for Trial on the file of Ist Addl.JFCM court, Warangal. As such the respondent falsely implicated me and my family members and thereby made false allegations against us to extract the money from
my family members. In fact the respondent and her family members are not having capacity to give huge amount of Rs.30 lacks as per her reply notice 6-122013 or as of Rs.20 lacks and 5 thulas of gold as per the complaint Dt. 22-102014. As such the respondent gave false allegation of dowry against me and my family members even as per her contentions. As such as per the allegations of
3 respondent against me for demand of additional dowry and for harassment are happened at Jangameswarapuram, Gurajala Mandal and at Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district. It is submitted that myself and respondent never lived together at Bhavani Nagar, Hanmkonda, Warangal district, the daughter of respondent
by
name Sathvika born on 11-3-2013 at Govt. Hospital, Hanamkonda. Even as per allegations of
respondent
she left the society of me on 19-4-2014 from
Piduguralla when her mother and her sister came to my house at Piduguralla where the altercation took place between and then the respondent shund me from my society and not joined with me till today. 09.
It is further submits that the Lw7 the IO in the above said case not secured
and not examined any independent witnesses either from Jangameswarapuram village where this petitioners are living or at Piduguralla where the Lw1 and A1 lived together in the house of B.Yella Rao or at Gurajala where I am working. As such the entire investigation done by Lw7 is defective investigation without any jurisdiction capacity. In fact as per the allegations of the respondent the entire alleged offences happened at Piduguralla. Hence the investigation done by Lw7 and the charge sheet field by him is a vitiated one. 10.
It is further submits that I am the only educated person in our family, I
studied M.Sc.,(Chemistry) and have been working as Lecturer at Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, AP. My father by name Malla Reddy who is aged of 70 years and other brothers are constituted as joint family and have been cultivating our agricultural land at Jangameswarapuram village.
In fact after the marriage I
belongs to Andhra Pradesh and the respondent belongs to Telangana State and due to the bifurcation of the both States and for due to the other marital problems the family disputes arosed between me and the respondent, with her family members the disputes went upto police stations and courts at Telangana. The panchyat elders between our families are also raising regional discrimination of both States
and have been blackmailing me and my family members to grab away my joint family properties. Hence my life in danger at stake whenever I attending the trial court at Warangal.
4 11.
It is further submits that my mother is aged of 65 years as per the charge
sheet in crime No. 148/2014 of WPS, Warangal and Adhar Card enclosed herein ( Doc.No…… and ……). She is also visually handicapped candidate with 40% blindness of her left eye and the Medical certificate issued by Dist. Medical Board enclosed (Doc.No………), she also underwent Heart surgery in the year 2010 at NRI Hospital, Guntur and Stunt diploid at 10 ATMS and post Dialotated with 2.5 x1.5 balloon to 16 ATMS discharge summary and certificate issued by the NRI Hospital, Guntur as Doc.No…….. 12.
It is submitted that my sister in law by name Snehalatha is aged of 30 years,
house wife and she has to attend her son aged of five years by name Laxminarasimha Reddy who is suffering with Fits/Ceizures/ episodes who have been getting medication at NRI hospital, Guntur district. The OP card filed as Doc. No……... 13.
I submits that my second brother by name Narayana Reddy who is aged of
40 years, agricultural coolie, who is suffering with Obesity having heavy weight of 140 Kgs, and unable to move from his village and suffering with BP and other ailments, medical certificates enclosed as Doc.No……..And my third brother by name Venkat Reddy who is aged of
37 years and who’s son by name
Laxminarasimha Reddy suffering with ………………………………… , 14.
It is further submits that my mother, brothers and my sister in law as they are
exempted to give their personal appearance/ as the criminal proceedings quashed against them, I should alone come all the while from Gurazala Mandal, AP to Ist Addl. JFCM court Warangal district for each and every adjournment. Where as, the respondent and her father are native of Warangal district, Telangana State having influences at Hanmkonda, hence they may cause life threat and blackmail me for compromise by depriving huge amount and our joint family property.
Hence , the above said case may be transferred from Telangana to any court in the Andhra Pradesh State at the discretion of the respondent.
DEPONENT Solemnly and sincerely affirmed on this the 2nd day of July 2015 and signed his name in my presence.
ADVOCATE/Hyderabad.
VERIFICATION
I, Yenamula Balaram Reddy, s/o Malla Reddy, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Private Lecturer, R/o Jangamaheswaram village, Gurzala Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, the above named Petitioner do hereby declare that the contents mentioned in the above paragraphs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Hence, verified on this the
of ……., 2015 at Hyderabad. DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF IST ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL. Crl.M.P. No.
of 2015 In
C.C. No. 878 of 2014 Between:1.Yenumala Bala Rami Reddy, s/o Malla Reddy, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Lecturer, 2.Smt. Yenumala Kotamma, w/o Malla Reddy, Age :65 yrs, Occ: Hose Wife, 3. Yenumala Narayana Reddy, s/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, 4. Yenumala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, 5.Yenumala Snehalatha Reddy @ Chitti, W/o. Venkat Reddy,Age:32 yrs, Occ: House Wife, ( all are R/o H.No. 19-227, Jangameswarapuram, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh State.) ..Petitioners No.1 to 5 / Accused No.1 to 5 And The State SHO, WPS, Warangal Urban Rep. by Sr. APP, Warangal.
…..Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 U/RULE 37 CRP 1.
It is submitted that the A1 in this case is the husband, A2 is the mother in
law, A3 and A4 are brother in laws and A5 is the sister in law of the defacto complainants (Lw1) in the above said case who are falsely implicated as per the allegations attracted u/s 498-A, 506 of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. 2.
It is submitted that A2 who is the mother of A1, who is aged of 65 years as
per the charge sheet in crime No. 148/2014 of WPS, Warangal and Adhar Card
enclosed herein ( Doc.No.1 and 2). She is also visually handicapped candidate with 40% blindness of her left eye and the Medical certificate issued by Dist. Medical Board enclosed (Doc.No.3), she also underwent Heart surgery in the year
2 2010 at NRI Hospital, Guntur and Stunt diploid at 10 ATMS and post Dialotated with 2.5 x1.5 balloon to 16 ATMS discharge summary and certificate issued by the NRI Hospital, Guntur as Doc.No.4. 3.
It is submitted that A5 being sister in law of A1, by name Snehalatha is
aged of 30 years, house wife and she has to attend her son aged of five years by name Laxminarasimha Reddy who is suffering with Fits/Ceizures/ episodes who have been getting medication at NRI hospital, Guntur district. The OP card filed as Doc. No.5. 4.
I submits that A3 is second brother by name Narayana Reddy of A1, who is
aged of 40 years, agricultural coolie, who is suffering with Obesity having heavy weight of 140 Kgs, and unable to move from his village and suffering with BP and other ailments, medical certificates enclosed as Doc.No.6. 5.
It is submitted that A4 is the third brother by name Venkat Reddy of A1,
who is aged of 37 years and who’s son by name Laxminarasimha Reddy suffering with Fits/Ceizures/ episodes who have been getting medication at NRI hospital, Guntur district. The OP card filed as Doc. No.5. 6.
It is further submits that the Lw7 the IO in the above said case not secured
and not examined any independent witnesses either from Jangameswarapuram village where as the family member of the petitioners are living or at Piduguralla where the defacto complainant and the petitioner lived together in the house of B.Yella Rao or at Gurajala where the petitioner
working. As such the entire
investigation done by Lw7 is defective investigation without any jurisdiction capacity. In fact as per the allegations of the defacto complainant
the entire
alleged offences happened at Piduguralla. Hence the investigation done by Lw7 and the charge sheet field by him is a vitiated one.
7.
It is further submits that the petitioner is the only educated person in his
family, and he
studied M.Sc.,(Chemistry) and have been working as Lecturer at
Gurajala Mandal, Guntur district, AP. The petitioner’s
father by name Malla
Reddy who is aged of 70 years and other brothers are constituted as joint family and have been cultivating our agricultural land at Jangameswarapuram village. In
3 fact after the marriage the petitioner belongs to Andhra Pradesh and the defacto complainant
belongs to Telangana State and due to the bifurcation of the both
States and for due to the other marital problems the family disputes arosed between the petitioner
and the defacto complainant,
with her family members the
disputes went upto police stations and courts at Telangana. The panchyat elders between our families are also raising regional discrimination of both States and have been blackmailing the petitioner and his family members to grab away the joint family properties. Hence the petitioners 1 to 5 have life in danger at stake whenever he attending the trial court at Warangal. 8.
It is further submits that as per the enclosed documents and as per the
reasons mentioned above and as per the medical grounds raised by the petitioners NO.2 to 5 the Hon’ble court may allow the Ist petitioner to appear himself as A1 and also on behalf of other petitioners 2 to 5 for each and every adjournment. When ever the Hon’ble court directed the need and necessity of the personal appearance of the petitioner NO.2 to 5 the A1 may cause produce them before this Hon’ble court and may co-operate for the due procedure of the trial. Hence it is therefore pray that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the Ist petitioner/A1 to appear on behalf of the petitioners No.2 to 5 for each and every adjournment. When ever the Hon’ble court directed the need and necessity of the personal appearance of the petitioner NO.2 to 5 the A1 may cause produce them before this Hon’ble court and may co-operate for the due procedure of the trial in the interest of justice.
Hanmkonda Dt.
Petitioner NO.1
Advocate for the Petitioners No.1 to 5
1.
2. 3. 4. Petitioners NO.2 to 5/Accused No.2 to 5
DISTRICT : RANGA REDDY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD Crl.P No.
of 2016
QUASH PETITION
Filed on: 21.03.2016
Filed by:Ch Samson Babu (1295) Advocate Hyderabad
