VENNA MARUTI RAMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA
LAWS(APH)-2019-1-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 21,2019

Venna Maruti Rama Appellant
VERSUS
State of Telangana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO - (1.)The petitioners are Accused Nos.2 to 4 among four accused in S.C.No.626 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar of Ranga Reddy District. The de facto complainant is the second respondent. The Sessions Case is outcome of Crime No.875 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A and 306 of Penal Code from the report of the de facto complainant against the four accused including the petitioner A2 to A4 supra dated 30.11.2017. The police after investigation by citing eleven witnesses including LWs.9 to 11, the Sub Inspector who issued First Information Report and the Investigating Officer and the subsequent Investigating Officer who assisted A2 to A4 and the other Investigating Officer who has completed investigation and filed charge sheet, the de facto complainant as LW1 no other than sister of the deceased, husband of the de facto complainant as LW2 and brother of LW2 as LW3, and two more circumstantial witnesses LWs.4 and 5 and the panch witnesses to the scene observation including LWs.6 and 7 and the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased as LW8. The report of the de facto complainant in registration of the crime reads that on that day at about 08.00 a.m., her sister's husband Venna Venkatesh A1 called her husband LW2 Peddi Haribabu and informed about Anuradha the deceased, wife of A1, committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan at the bed room by bolting the door from inside and they later opened the door and observed of she breathed the last. On information, they immediately along with other relatives rushed to Plot No.282 of Anjaneya Nagar, Moosapet, Kukatpally of Hyderabad and found the body of deceased. It is further mentioned that previously the deceased Anuradha @ Anu was harassed and even beaten by her husband and to the same even mediated through elders and he never changed his attitude and he and his parents and only brother V.Prasad - A2 to A4 along with A1 used to harass the said Anuradha-deceased regularly and unable to bear with their torture, she committed suicide and breathed last and they are suspecting doubts about the alleged suicide. It is also mentioned that A1 was having illicit relations with others upon which he used to pick up quarrels with the deceased hence to take action against A1 husband of the deceased Venkatesh, A2 mother of A1 V.Maruthi Rama (wrongly described as Venna Rama Devi), A3 father of A1 V.Durga Rao and A4 only brother of A1 V.Prasad. It is therefrom the crime registered for the offence supra and from the investigation filed the charge sheet referred supra from which the learned committal Magistrate taken cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions case number was allotted in securing presence of accused. The present quash petition impugnment against the same is that there are no specific allegations against A2 to A4 but for against A1 and mere use of word harassment nowhere suffice to rope them to the grave crime leave apart A2, A3 - parents of A1 who are residents of Bapatla of Guntur District residing at Vijayawada and the question of their interfering and their support to A1 in the matrimonial issues that deceased discerns, they never interfered of, infact with the marital life and that A4 resident of Jaipur of Rajasthan State and never interference with the affairs of deceased and A1. The petitioners have no ill feelings against the deceased in any manner and nowhere concerned with any of the alleged offences, if at all committed by A1 and they are unnecessarily framed in the case falsely, hence, to quash the proceedings.
(2.)Notice sent to the de facto complainant, even served, failed to attend and taken as heard the de facto complainant second respondent, heard public prosecutor representing first respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioners A2 to A4 and perused the material on record.
(3.)The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions of the quash petition with reference to the material on record and the learned public prosecutor opposed the same showing there is prima facie accusation against the petitioners also along with A1 who all harassed the deceased in driving to commit suicide by their instigation and abetment and thereby petitioner is liable to be dismissed and it is also the contention that there are ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sec. 498A besides 306 Penal Code and nothing to quash the proceedings.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.