HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4559 AND 4499 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P. No.4559 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 to
quash the proceedings in C.C. No.62 of 2019 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar. Criminal Petition
No.4499 of 2019 is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7. The offences
alleged against the petitioners - accused Nos.4 to 6 are under Section -
498A of IPC and Section - 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Accused No.4 and 6 are sisters of accused No.1, husband of
respondent No.2 herein, and accused Nos.5 and 7 are their husbands.
2. Heard Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
3. As per the complaint, dated 13.07.2018, the allegations against the petitioners herein are as follows: i. the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 24.12.2016 at Dasari Gardens, Karimnagar; ii. the parents of respondent No.2 have given dowry, the details of which are mentioned in the complaint;
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 2 iii. respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived happily for three (03) months;
iv. thereafter, the parents and sisters of accused No.1 have started harassing respondent No.2, both physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry;
v. accused No.1 abused and assaulted her; and vi. the petitioners herein have also supported accused No.1, and all of them harassed her demanding additional dowry and, thus, they have subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty, both physically and mentally.
4. Based on the said complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Karimnagar, had registered a case in Crime No.161 of 2018 against the petitioners herein and others for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC and Section - 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. After completion of investigation, the police have filed final report and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same vide C.C. No.62 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences.
6. Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 24.12.2016. The petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7, residents of USA, came to India only to attend the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2. They left USA KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 3 on 21.07.2017. There is no allegation, much less specific allegation against them and there are general allegations that they have supported accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry. Except that, there is no other allegation.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 are residents of Hyderabad, and their marriage was performed long back and they are nothing to do with matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Accused No.4 is working in Kasturba Gandhi Degree and PG College for Women, while her husband, accused No.5, is a Software Professional. There are no allegations, much less specific allegation against them.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that none of the witnesses examined by the police spoke about the alleged harassment of respondent No.2 by the petitioners. The Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C. Even in the chare sheet also, there is no mention that the Investigating Officer tried to serve notice under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C on the petitioners herein. Even then, without following the said procedure, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid C.C. for the said offences. The learned counsel would further submit that the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners and, KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 4 therefore, requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid C.C.
9. Mr. V.Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. Their names are also specifically mentioned in the complaint. According to him, accused Nos.6 and 7 have stayed in India for about seven (07) months. There are several triable issues to be elicited during the course of trial, and the petitioners herein instead of facing trial, filed the present petitions to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. According to him, the entire conversation was recorded in Compact Disk (CD), and the same would be produced before the Court below. With the said contentions, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petitions.
10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are specific allegations against the accused, including the petitioners herein and they have alternative remedy of filing an application before the Court below for their discharge. Instead of availing the same, the petitioners filed the present petitions.
11. The above said facts would reveal that there is no dispute that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 24.12.2016. It is an arranged marriage. Even according to respondent No.2, they lived happily for a period of three (03) months and, thereafter, the accused have started harassing her, both KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 5 physically and mentally. A perusal of the complaint dated 13.07.2018, statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet would reveal that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein. All the allegations leveled against them are general in nature. Accused No.4 is married sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is her husband, a Software Professional. Accused No.4 is working in the aforesaid College. Their marriage was performed on 19.05.2005. They are staying in Hyderabad. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against them. Similarly, accused No.6 is also married sister of accused No.1 and accused No.7 is her husband. Both are staying in USA. They came to India to attend the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 and, thereafter, they never visited India after July, 2017. In proof of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed Photostat copies of Passports.
12. It is also relevant to note that during the course of investigation, the police have not recorded statements of witnesses to show that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences. Even the witnesses whose statements were recorded did not speak about the harassment that meted out by the petitioners towards respondent No.2. There is no date or time as to when they have demanded or harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry etc. Except stating that respondent No.2 would produce call recording statement and the contents of CD etc., she has not produced the same.
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 6 The Investigating Officer also did not collect such evidence during the course of his investigation. He did not collect the call data to show that accused Nos.6 and 7, residents of USA and accused Nos.4 and 5, residents of Hyderabad, have supported accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry and harassed respondent No.2. In view o the same, it is clear that there is no evidence with regard to the role played by the petitioners in the commission of offences alleged against them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1 categorically held that in the absence of specific allegation with regard to the role played by accused including married sisters, the proceedings for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments categorically held that High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justiciae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised; (a) to give effect to any order under the Code; (b) to prevent abuse of process of Courts; and (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
13. As discussed supra, in the present case, there are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners - accused Nos.4 to 7. Thus, viewed from any angle, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC cannot be continued for trial against the petitioners. 1 . (2010) 7 SCC 667 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019 7
14. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petitions are allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.62 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein, accused Nos.4 to 7 only.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 5th March, 2021 Mgr