HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4073 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.4, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2, none appears.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.4111 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The petitioner herein is married sister of accused No.1, husband of respondent No.2. A perusal of the complaint dated10.11.2018 lodged by respondent No.2 would reveal that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 27.02.2016 and it is a love marriage. It appears that thereafter matrimonial disputes arose between them. According to respondent No.2, accused No.1, his parents - accused Nos.2 and 3 and his sister- accused No.4 and petitioner herein, started harassing her, both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. She has lodged a complaint with Women Police Station, Charminar, who in turn KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020 2 registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.4111 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded statements of LWs.1 to 5.
4. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no allegation, much less specific allegation against the petitioner - accused No.4. She is married sister of husband of respondent No.2 and she is staying with her husband separately. She is nothing to do with the matrimonial disputes between respondent No.2 and accused Nos.1 to 3. Even then, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner implicating her in the present case. According to him, contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that earlier respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on21.08.2017 with Bahadurpura Police Station, who in turn advised her to lodge a complaint with Women Police Station, South Zone. Accordingly, she gave a complaint. During counseling, her husband has written MOU to the effect that he would look after her well and stay separately from his parents. Even then, she has lodged the present complaint on 10.11.2018 implicating the petitioner herein.
KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020 3
6. Referring to the contents of the charge sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein at all. The contents of charge sheet lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, on the said grounds, the learned counsel seeks to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein, both in the complaint dated 10.11.2018 and the charge sheet. He has referred to the contents of the complaint as well as charge sheet. According to him, there are several triable issues which have to be elicited during course of trial. The petitioner instead of facing trial filed the present petition.
8. In view of the above said rival submissions, as stated above, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 10.11.2018, Women Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others. In the complaint also, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. She is sister of accused No.1. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner herein has supported accused No.1 in harassing her, both physically and mentally. The petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 forced respondent No.2 to get pregnancy aborted. They have harassed her and ill-treated her. On the threat of pronouncement of divorce, she got aborted at Gupta Hospital and, thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020 4 along with petitioner started demanding additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs. She has specifically mentioned about her earlier complaint in the present complaint.
9. In the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code, respondent No.2 has specifically made allegations against the petitioner herein. The petitioner along with her parents and brother, accused No.1 harassed her, both physically and mentally. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that she has forced respondent No.2 to get pregnancy aborted, and for the said purpose, the petitioner herein has harassed her along with accused Nos.1 to 3, and under the threat of pronouncement of divorce, respondent No.2 got her pregnancy aborted on 15.10.2016 in Gupta Hospital. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Accused Nos.2 to 4 made a plan to send accused No.1 aboard without even informing respondent No.2. On 06.01.2018, accused No.1, husband of respondent No.2 informed that he is going to Mumbai for an interview and later he sent a message that he went to Kuwait with the help of accused No.4. Accused No.1 did not take care of respondent No.2 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4. Thus, prima facie, there are allegations against the petitioner herein. The police have specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 to 4 have harassed her
10. Whereas, according to the petitioner, there are no specific allegations against her, but respondent No.2, both in her complaint KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020 5 and her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, has specifically made allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not the stage to be considered all these issues as the same have to be considered only after full-fledged trial.
11. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1 the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020 6 decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed supra, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be elicited during trial and the same will be decided after full- fledged trial. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish any ground to quash the proceedings and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to face trial and prove her innocence. The trial Court shall consider the evidence, both documentary and oral, and pass judgment uninfluenced by any of the findings of this Court supra.
13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 22nd February, 2021 Mgr