HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.P. No.12254 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, in C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C.
The facts which led to filing of this Criminal Petition are as under:
The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The allegations in the private complaint are that the marriage of the 2nd respondent with accused No.1 was solemnized on 30.10.2014 and at the time of marriage, on the demand made by A-1 to A-3, the parents of the 2nd respondent gave gold ornaments, cash and other valuable gifts to them. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started making huge demands and asked the parents of the 2nd respondent to give gifts to nearly 500 people from their side and the 2nd petitioner/A3 told that the 2nd respondent would be harassed if dowry is not given as demanded 2 by them. Subsequently, A-1 left for U.S.A. alone and on 20.12.2014, the 2nd respondent left India and joined A-1 in U.S.A, where A-1 started harassing the 2nd respondent for want of additional dowry and that the behaviour of A-1 towards the 2nd respondent was inhuman. It is further stated that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 15.09.2015. It is further stated that A-1 has tortured the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically.
None appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Hence, heard Sri P.Shashi Kiram, learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the incidents alleged to have been made by the 2nd respondent are said to have been taken place at U.S.A. and that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners and the allegations leveled against them are general in nature. He further submits that the petitioners being the relatives of A-1 and in order to put pressure on A-1, the petitioners were roped into this case. He also submits that as seen from the complaint, the 2nd respondent seems to have returned to India on 05.01.2016 and if the allegations were true, nothing could have prevented her from filing the case immediately and need not to have waited till 01.05.2017. He further submits that the 2nd respondent had intentionally suppressed the fact of filing O.P.No.290 of 2016 by her against A-1 seeking divorce. He also 3 submits that since the allegations against the petitioners are general in nature, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed and prayed to allow the Criminal Petition. In support of his contentions he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another1 and Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another2.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State opposed the Criminal Petition.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful to refer to the allegations made in the present complaint and also the judgments of the Apex Court in this regard.
In NEELU CHOPRA AND ANOTHER V. BHARTI3, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 114 of IPC. The Apex Court held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. The Apex Court found that the allegations in the said complaint were vague, as it does not show as 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 2009(4) JCC 3021 4 to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by them in the commission of crime. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court found that continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of law.
In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (1 supra), the Apex Court held that mere casual references of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without any allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them in view of overlooking facts borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court also observed that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused, especially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the case against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in the torture of the complainant.
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2 supra), the Apex Court pointed out that in cases of this nature, allegations in the complaint should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection 5 especially against the husband's relatives who are living in different cities, who never visit or rarely visit the matrimonial house of the complainant. The Supreme Court reminded the member of the Bar and Bench of their social responsibility and obligation to ensure that social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.
From the judgments referred to above, it is clear that continuation of proceedings against the accused would be improper where the allegations made against the accused are vague and omnibus in nature.
In the instant case, as seen from the material available on record, the marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place on 30.10.2014 and she joined with A-1 at U.S.A on 20.12.2014 and they were blessed with a male child on 15.09.2015. The record also discloses that all the allegations were made against A-1, which are said to have been taken place at U.S.A. The record further discloses that O.P.No.290 of 2016 filed by the 2nd respondent against A-1 seeking divorce has already been allowed on 23.02.2018 and against which A-1 filed F.C.A.No.396 of 2018 before this Court, which is pending.
Further, from a perusal of the private complaint, I find that there are no allegations against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 that they have harassed the 2nd respondent and that there is general and omnibus allegation that whenever the petitioners used to call A-1, 6 A-1 used to step-up harassment and violence on the 2nd respondent. Except that no overt act of ill-treatment or cruelty is alleged against the petitioners/A2 and A3.
Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above and for the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.
___________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI 09.04.2021 Gsn/gkv