Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1796 (TS)

Dondeti Marreddy v. T. Sandeep Reddy

2025-12-11

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : Since the issue involved in these Criminal Petitions is arising out of the same Calendar Case, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Challenging the order, dated 03.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024 in C.C.No.1394 of 2023 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), the petitioner-witness-father of the victim filed Crl.P.No.14180 of 2024. Crl.P.No.10799 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, assailing the order, dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 in C.C.No.1394 of 2023 by the trial Court. 3. Heard Sri G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner- witness-father of the victim in Crl.P.No.14180 of 2024 and learned counsel for respondent No.2-victim in Crl.P.No.10799 of 2025; Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crl.P.No.14180 of 2024 and for petitioner-accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.10799 of 2025. Perused the records. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court. 5. Factual matrix: (i) Basing on the complaint lodged by the victim against the accused, a case in Crime No.208 of 2016 was registered against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 506 and 379 r/w 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.No.378 of 2016. Since accused Nos.1 and 4 are absconding, the case was split-up and re-numbered as C.C.No.1394 of 2023 against them and non-bailable warrants are also pending against them. (ii) On issuance of non-bailable warrants, the Investigating Officer addressed a letter to the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) for impounding of passports pertaining to accused Nos.1 and 4 vide passports bearing Nos.K0709406 and Z2887031. In response, the RPO issued show-cause notices, but no further action was taken to impound the passports. (iii) Questioning the inaction on the part of the RPO, the father of the victim filed W.P.No.1718 of 2023 before this Court. In response, the RPO issued show-cause notices, but no further action was taken to impound the passports. (iii) Questioning the inaction on the part of the RPO, the father of the victim filed W.P.No.1718 of 2023 before this Court. This Court, by order, dated 16.08.2023 allowed the said writ petition, directing the RPO to impound the passports of accused Nos.1 and 4 as contemplated under Sections 10(3)(e) and (h) of the Passports Act, 1967, by following the procedure contemplated under law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, within four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Inspite of the directions issued by this Court, the RPO failed to impound the passports of accused Nos.1 and 4. As such, the victim filed Contempt proceedings against the RPO. However, the Contempt Case was closed, duly taking note that the passports of accused Nos.1 and 4 were impounded. (iv) Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 4 filed Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024 before the trial Court seeking no objection certificate for renewal of their impounded passports bearing Nos.K0709406 and Z2887031 respectively, to enable them to face and participate in the trial. The trial Court, by order, dated 03.09.2024 partly allowed the said application, permitting accused Nos.1 and 4 to renew their passports by submitting their original passports and obtain new passports within six months from 03.09.2024 to 03.03.2025, subject to recalling the non-bailable warrants pending against them and executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of Rs.10,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 4 were further directed to appear before the trial Court on 03.03.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the victim filed Crl.P.No.14180 of 2024. (v) The sister of accused No.1 i.e., accused No.4 filed a quash petition before this Court vide Crl.P.No.2813 of 2025, wherein, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings against her on 27.02.2025. In pursuance of the directions in Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024, accused No.1 appeared before the trial court on 03.03.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 09.06.2025 for serving case papers. (vi) Meanwhile, on 10.03.2025, accused No.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 before the trial Court seeking to permit him to return to his workplace in USA, come back to India and appear before the trial Court on all future adjournments including on 09.06.2025. (vi) Meanwhile, on 10.03.2025, accused No.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 before the trial Court seeking to permit him to return to his workplace in USA, come back to India and appear before the trial Court on all future adjournments including on 09.06.2025. In the said application, accused No.1 categorically undertook to come back to India and appear before the trial court on all future adjournments and to co-operate for speedy disposal of the case. However, the trial court adjourned the said petition from time to time until 28.04.2025. (vii) While so, the petitioner approached this Court vide Crl.P.Nos.5585 and 5586 of 2025 seeking for suspension of condition No.2 in the order dated 22-10-2024 in Crl.M.P.No.4517 of 2024 and in the order dated 08.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2025. This Court, by common order, dated 28.04.2025, directed the trial court to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 by 02.05.2025 and the trial Court dismissed the said application on 19.05.2025. Challenging the same, accused No.1 filed Crl.P.No.10799 of 2025. 6. Submissions of Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 4: (i) Accused Nos.1 and 4 have categorically mentioned in the application filed by them that their passports were already impounded, and the trial Court, after taking into account several surrounding circumstances, was pleased to permit accused No.1 and his sister- accused No.4 permitted for renewal of passports, subject to certain conditions. The LOC issued against accused No.1 was suspended by the trial Court, by its order dated 08.01.2025, after recalling NBWs issued against him. (ii) As per the directions of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024, accused No.1 appeared before the trial Court on 03.03.2025. Hence, he submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 03.09.2024 and the same cannot be interfered with. (iii) As there is every possibility of risk to accused Nos.1’s employment in USA, he filed Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 before the trial Court on 10.03.2025 seeking permission to travel to USA, however, the same was dismissed, holding that as accused No.1 was absconding, it would be difficult to secure his presence and permitting accused No.1 to travel to USA would amount to the violation of the order passed in W.P.No.1718 of 2023 by this Court, which is erroneous. Further, as accused No.1 was employed in Multi National Google Company and due to Covid Pandemic, he could not appear before the trial Court. Further, as accused No.1 was employed in Multi National Google Company and due to Covid Pandemic, he could not appear before the trial Court. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the parents of accused No.1 have been appearing from the date of issuance of summons. Accused No.1 has got roots in Hyderabad, his parents are permanent residents of Hyderabad and his family got substantial properties in India. Accused No.1 and his parents undertook that accused No.1 will be present during the course of trial. His absence would not prejudice either the prosecution or trial proceeding in any manner inasmuch as the proceeding itself has not ripen for trial. (iv) The learned Judge grossly erred in not taking into consideration the orders passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.3733 of 2024 and 4517 of 2024, whereby accused Nos.1 and 4 were permitted to renew their passports and NBWs pending against them were recalled. (v) The learned Magistrate dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 in a mechanical manner. Accused No.1 categorically mentioned in his application that his passport was impounded and once the passport is impounded, the order passed by this Court directing to initiate appropriate action for impounding the passport would merge with the order. The competent authority impounded the passport without issuing notice to accused Nos.1 and 4, contrary to law and failed to see that the order passed by this Court to take necessary action to impound the passport of accused No.1 would not have any effect in future proceedings particularly after renewal of the passport. (vi) Hence, he prayed to set aside the order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 and permit accused No.1 to return to his work place in USA and come back to India and appear before the Court as and when it is necessary. 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the father of the victim-witness and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that suppressing the fact that their passports have already been impounded, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024, which was partly-allowed by the trial Court on 03.09.2024. With regard to the order, dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025, they submitted that if accused No.1 is permitted to travel, there is every chance that he may not return to India. With regard to the order, dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025, they submitted that if accused No.1 is permitted to travel, there is every chance that he may not return to India. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by accused No.1 and the same cannot be interfered with. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that accused No.1 has appeared before the trial Court on 03.03.2025, pursuant to the directions issued by it in the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024. For the said reason, and in view of the undertaking given by accused No.1 that he would return to India and appear before the trial Court as and when required, and considering the exigencies of accused No.1, the impugned order, dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2025 in C.C.No.1394 of 2023 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. The accused No.1 is directed to appear before the trial Court/ Incharge Court on 18.12.2025, on which date, the said Court shall conduct his examination. After completion of examination, accused No.1 is permitted to travel abroad, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum in the shape of F.D.R. to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the trial Court that he shall appear before it as and when required. (iii) The petitioner shall furnish his address at U.S.A. and mobile number used in U.S.A. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial whenever the evidence of PW1 commences, for speedy disposal of the case. In default, this order gets vacated. 9. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order, dated 03.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024 and there is no infirmity or illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.14180 of 2024 is dismissed and Crl.P.No.10799 of 2025 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.