THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13323 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.937 of 2010 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') taken on file against her.
2. The 1st respondent filed complaint before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that her marriage was performed with A1 on 11.12.1994 at Palvancha, Khammam District and after marriage, she joined the company of A1 and lived happily for one month and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 25 tulas of gold, 40 tulas of silver and household articles including furniture and performed marriage in a grand manner. Since 1996, A1 ill-treated her and harassed her physically and mentally and out of the wedlock, she was blessed with two children i.e. one male and one female. She was working as a teacher in Government School, Bibinagar. A1 worked as a cashier in SBH, STC Branch, Secunderabad. A1 used to come late in the night in drunken condition and beat her black and blue and also used to beat the children. A1 also used to pick up quarrel with her at the instigation of A2 and abuse her and also pass sneering remarks over her. A1 and A2 used to harass her by saying that she was not suitable to them and she had not brought sufficient dowry as per their desires. In the month of October, 2008, the accused demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, beaten her Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.13323 of 2013 mercilessly and necked her from the marital house along with minors on wearing apparel. She went to her parents' house and her parents arranged an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs by availing loan from relatives and friends and paid the same on 31.10.2009. A1 promised to look after her and the children well, but after few months, he again started demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs from her parents. A1 again threw her out from the house along with children on 05.02.2010 and threatened to kill her and children if she failed to fulfil his demands. She took a house on rent and was residing with her children, but the accused came there on 22.02.2010 and created nuisance, bet her and threatened to kill her. On her hue and cry people gathered there and she escaped from the hands of the accused. The said complaint was referred to the Woman Police Station, CCS and the same was registered as Crime No.341 of 2010 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the above offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigating officer had not properly enquired/investigated in detail and filed charge sheet mechanically basing on the statements of the complainant and her parents. The entire statements of the witnesses would not disclose the ingredients of the Sections mentioned in the complaint against the petitioner. The complainant stated in her statement that she was separated from her in-laws and shifted to Sathupalli as her husband was transferred to Sathupalli and they stayed there for 4 to 5 years. She also further stated that Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.13323 of 2013 in the year 1998, she got job as Government Teacher at Kodada and they shifted to Kodada. Kodada was the place of complainant's parents. After getting the job in the year 1998 she lived with her parents for 10 years. In fact, the place of job of A1 was away from Kodada. But for her convenience, he shifted to Kodada. A2 was living separately since they shifted their family to Sathupalli. He further submitted that the petitioner was suffering with brain cancer and she underwent operation and treatment and that she was not in a position to bear any mental or physical harassment from any one.
5. He further submitted that as interim stay of all further proceedings was granted by this Court on 13.11.2013, the case was split up against the petitioner/A2 and was tried against A1 and ended in acquittal on 18.01.2018 and filed a copy of the said judgment in C.C.No.937 of 2010.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.
7. Perused the record. On perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.937 of 2010,dated 18.01.2018 tried against A.1, it was mentioned that the complainant/victim was not examined by the prosecution and a report was filed by the police stating that her whereabouts were not known, as such the evidence of LWs.1 to 3 was closed and LW.4 expired and only IO was examined as PW.1. As the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as there was no other evidence other than the IO, acquitted A1 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. The statement of complainant recorded by the police on 10.06.2010 would disclose that after her marriage with A1, after two Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.13323 of 2013 years, they separated from their in-laws and shifted to Sathupalli because her husband was transferred to Sathupalli Branch and stayed there for four to five years. In the year 1998, she got a Government Job as Teacher at Kodada and then they shifted to Kodada. Thus, most of her marital life, she stayed in a separate family, away from her in-laws due to the job of A1 or due to her securing a job in the year 1998, within four years of her marriage. Even in the month of January, 2010 when her mother-in-law came to her house, she immediately shifted the house and took another house on rent and lived there along with her children separately. Thus, the statement of the complainant as LW.1 and the statements of her parents as LWs.2 and 3 also would not disclose that the complainant had stayed with her mother-in-law all through her marital life. The case against main accused i.e. A.1 itself ended in acquittal, as the complainant failed to give evidence against him. The continuation of prosecution against the petitioner/A2 is a futile exercise and no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the same. As such the petition is liable to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in C.C. No.937 of 2010 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was split up from C.C.No.937 of 2010 and numbered as C.C.No.651 of 2017.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Dated:13.12.2021.
kvrm