HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3920 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against her are under Section - 498A of IPC and Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State, and Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. CASE OF PROSECUTION:
As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner herein are as follows:
i) the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 06.02.2011;
ii) at the time of marriage, on the demand of petitioner and accused No.1, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry, 50 tulas of gold; and KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 2 Rs.1.00 lakh for purchase of Hunk Motorcycle; and also 10 tulas of gold towards Adapaduchu Katnam;
iii) the parents of respondent No.2 performed their marriage by spending Rs.20.00 lakhs;
iv) respondent No.2 has joined the company of accused No.1, where the petitioner herein also resides along with them at East Pragathi Nagar, Moulali, Hyderabad, and lived there happily for a few days;
v) later, accused No.1 used to come to the house in drunken condition and harassing respondent No.2, both mentally and physically by abusing her;
vi) they have blessed with a female baby;
vii) thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them as accused Nos.1 and 2 started demanding to get Rs.1.00 lakh towards additional dowry, otherwise leave the house;
viii) after her marriage, her father used to give Rs.5000/- per month to her and the same would be taken by accused No.1;
ix) while she was doing job, accused No.1 suspected her character, she left the job;
x) after that, accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs;
xi) accused No.1 used to say with respondent No.2 that he has cancelled three engagements on the pretext that he KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 3 would get more dowry and started harassing her demanding additional dowry;
xii) the petitioner herein used to encourage accused No.1 to obtain divorce from respondent No.2, so that he would get dowry;
5. With the above allegations, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint with Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein.
6. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences.
7. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
i) Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 is suffering with 'epilepsy' and the said fact was suppressed by her parents at the time of marriage.
ii) Accused No.1 came to know about the same when respondent No.2 became unconscious thrice. Therefore, accused No.1 has filed a divorce petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 which was dismissed for default by striking out the defence of accused No.1.
iii) There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and also improvements. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioner - accused No.2. In fact, respondent KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 4 No.2 has beat the petitioner herein and accused No.1, who in turn received bleeding injuries. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs.
iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P.2.
v) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.
8. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:
i) Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the present Calendar Case is of the year 2017, whereas the petitioner herein has filed the present petition in the year 2021. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein also.
ii) He would further submit that the police have filed charge sheet on consideration of statements of witnesses and also the evidence collected. In fact, there are contradictions in the versions of petitioner herein in the criminal petition itself. He has referred to paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the criminal petition. There are triable issues. The petitioner herein instead of facing trial, proving her 1 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 2 . (2019) 15 SCC 357 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 5 innocence, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.187 of 2017 after elapse of four years.
iii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the present petition.
9. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Both the petitioner and accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2, both mentally and physically. There are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial and prove her innocence. The defence taken by the petitioner may not be considered in the present petition filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has to take such defence during trial before the trial Court.
ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.
10. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) A perusal of the material would reveal that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 06.02.2011, and it is an arranged marriage. They blessed with a female baby, by name Harika. She was aged 2 years as on 27.02.2017. Accused No.1 has filed a petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was dismissed by striking off his defence.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 6 Thus, accused No.1 has filed the above divorce petition after lapse of five years of his marriage.
ii) A perusal of the statement of respondent No.2, complaint dated 27.02.2017 and the charge sheet would reveal that, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a widow and was an employee of NFC and also she used to stay with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. There is specific mention about the cash, jewellery and motorcycle etc. given by the parents of respondent No.2 towards dowry. There is specific allegation about demand of additional dowry. There is also specific allegation that the petitioner herein and accused No.1 used to harass her, both mentally and physically and also abusing her in filthy language. Her father used to give Rs.5,000/- per month which accused No.1 used to take from her. There is also a specific allegation that accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2 by demanding an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards additional dowry.
iii) In the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C, respondent No.2 has specifically stated that petitioner - accused No.2 and her son harassed saying that accused No.2 will take divorce from her as she is suffering from thyroid. Accused No.1 maintained illicit relation with tenant and harassing her. Respondent No.2 worked in Omega Degree College for about three years and during the said period, the petitioner and accused No.1 used to take care of her. But, after some time, accused No.1 suspected her character and, therefore, KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 7 she stopped the said job. There is also a specific allegation that the petitioner herein and accused No.2 neglected the daughter of respondent No.2 while she was ill and her parents used to bear the hospital expenses. There is also a specific allegation against the petitioner - accused No.2 herein that she has harassed respondent No.2 saying that they are providing roti, kapada and makhan and that respondent No.2 has to stay in the house as a dog and saying so, she used to abuse respondent No.2 in filthy language. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The defence taken by the petitioner that there are contradictions and improvement in the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the trial Court during trial, but not at this stage.
iv) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioner herein is unsustainable in view of the aforesaid discussion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is suffering with 'epilepsy' and the said fact was suppressed by respondent No.2 and her parents at the time of marriage. But, a perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with respondent No.2 on 06.02.2011, they balessed with a baby and the divorce application filed after five years of the marriage was dismissed. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not probable, and believable at this stage.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 8 However, it is triable issue. The petitioner has to take the said defence during trial. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 beat the petitioner and accused No.1, but he has not filed any document to show that the petitioner herein and accused No.1 have lodged complaint against respondent No.2 and the same is not borne out by record. Therefore, according to this Court, the petitioner herein has to take the said defence during the course of trial in the C.C.
v) Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the petitioner worked in NFC and retired from service. IN view of the pendency of the present case, her Employer is not releasing her retrial benefits. But, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.
vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi Chopra2.
vii) The Apex Court in several judgments examined the scope and ambit of powers of High Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. In Bhajan Lal1 the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 9 guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 10
viii) In Rashmi Chopra2, the Apex Court after referring to the principle held by it in various other judgments including Bhajan Lal1, and Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 held that the criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. The judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassing. If the High Court finds that the proceedings deserve to be quashed as per the parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal1, the High Court shall not hesitate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
ix) According to this Court, in view of the above said discussion that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to quash the proceedings, the aforesaid decisions are not helpful to the case of petitioner.
x) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra4 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 3 . (2017) 13 SCC 369 4 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 11 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 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.
xi) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh5, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to 5 . AIR 2021 SC 931 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021 12 quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
11. CONCLUSION:
i) In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of law and the discussion made, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. by this Court exercising its inherent power under Section
- 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The present Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 16th July, 2021 Mgr