HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.7073 OF 2019
Between:
Jadi Prasad and others. ...Petitioners
And
State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 7073 of 2019
% Dated 01.11.2022
# Jadi Prasad and others. ... Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.B.Rachana Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7073 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the Charge sheet dt.22.07.2019 in C.C.No.220 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellandu, against the petitioners. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed a written complaint stating that on 25.06.2011 as per Christian customs, she was married to 1st petitioner/A1 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and Rs.2 lakhs worth household articles and gold ornaments were also given. After one year son was born. Accused No.1 got job as a Government Teacher and since then he started harassing the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, failing which he would marry another woman. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners who are parents of A1 also supported 1st petitioner and ultimately she was necked out from the house. There was reconciliation and the defacto complainant again joined the petitioners, however, the 4 demand for additional dowry continued and accused No.1 also threatened defacto complainant that he would marry another woman. The 1st petitioner filed for restitution of conjugal rights on 03.11.2015 and also divorce petition in the year 2017.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant had deserted the 1st petitioner; and that the 1st petitioner- husband has filed restitution application in the year 2015 and since she failed to join 1st petitioner, he filed for divorce in the year 2017. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent was away from the 1st petitioner since 2015 and chose to file present complaint in the year 2019 after grant of divorce on 25.09.208 vide D.O.P.No.319 of 2017 by the Family Court Judge at Adilabad. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the charge sheet filed under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have to be quashed.
5. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are several facts which have been narrated in the complaint and also the statement of the witnesses, for which reason, the case has to be tried by the concerned Court; that only after examination of witnesses it can be concluded whether the allegations are correct or not; and that at the inception when there is a prima facie case the proceedings cannot be quashed.
5
6. It is admitted that for the reason of desertion by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the 1st petitioner filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights vide O.P.No.436/2015 before the Family Court at Adilabad. Thereafter, having waited for two years, divorce application was filed in the year 2017. The Family Court Judge having examined witnesses and considering the events that transpired between the petitioners and the defacto complainant found that the defacto complainant was not willing to join the company of the 1st petitioner, as such the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was closed on 20.04.2017.
7. Court found that on perusal of the deposition of the 1st petitioner, the defacto complainant has deserted the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner was subjected to cruelty. Further, the Family court found that the defacto complainant had made up her mind not to cooperate for leading peaceful conjugal life and insisted that the 1st petitioner should stay away from her parents who are petitioners 2 and 3. In the said circumstances when the defacto complainant deserted the 1st petitioner it amounts to cruelty and divorce was granted. The present complaint was filed nearly after 8 months of granting of divorce by the Family Court. The only allegation that is leveled against the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner had asked for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs.
8. The case for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in the year 2015 as the defacto complainant deserted the 1st petitioner. As the 6 Judge, Family Court, found on examination of witnesses that the defacto complainant had deserted him and subjected the 1st petitioner- husband to cruelty, divorce was granted. When the defacto complainant has deserted the 1st petitioner prior to 2015, there is no explanation for the delay of nearly four years in lodging the criminal complaint. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant never lead marital life thereafter. The allegation of demanding for additional dowry as mentioned in the complaint appears to have been made up.
9. The main reason found by the Family Court in divorce proceedings was that the defacto complaint was aggrieved by the fact that the 1st petitioner was taking care of his aged parents who are 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The allegation regarding demand of additional dowry, if at all, prior to the year 2015 is made vaguely and no specific instances of such demand or confrontation are made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses examined during the investigation. Further, the 1st petitioner who is the son of 2nd and 3rd petitioners has bounden duty to take care of his parents and the defacto complainant objecting to 1st petitioner taking care of his parents would amount to cruelty and consequent to grant of divorce by the family Court on the ground of cruelty of the defacto complainant, filing of criminal complaint under Section 498-A is deliberate and to harass the petitioners.
7
10. In the background of the case of desertion by the defacto complainant prior to 2015 and there being no relation between the defacto complainant with the 1st petitioner for nearly four years and thereafter filing the complaint in the year 2019, are valid grounds to interfere with the continuance of criminal proceedings against these petitioners. No useful purpose would be served in the background of the case and the events that transpired between 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.220/2019, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellandu, against the petitioners, are quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt. 01.11.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o.tk 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7073 of 2019 Dt. 01.11.2022 tk