HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12718 OF 2018
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.218 of 2015 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are A2 and A3. According to the case of the prosecution A1 was married to the 1st respondent on 22.12.2007 and dower was given in accordance with Muslim Personal law. The petitioners allegedly informed that A1 was working in Australia and at the time of marriage, Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 15 tulas of gold and jahez articles were given to A1 in the presence of these petitioners and jahez list was also prepared. Six months after the marriage, these petitioners and A1 started passing sadistic remarks against defacto complainant and that A1 at the instigation of these petitioners, demanded the defacto complainant additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs for sending her to Australia. The defacto complainant went to Australia where A1 tortured her mentally and also forced to work in Australia. These petitioners allegedly used to instigate A1 on phone and several instances were also narrated stating that A1 2 has harassed the defacto complainant in Australia and she tolerated the harassment on the hope that the A1 would mend his behavior.
3. Since A1 and these petitioners were always asking for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the defacto complainant went to her parents house and lodged the complaint.
4. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 and these petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, 406 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is aged more than 60 years and 2nd petitioner is aged more than 72 years. Even according to the charge sheet, they were residing in Hyderabad and the defacto complainant was residing along with A1 in Australia and they have nothing to do with the events that transpired in Australia.
6. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that several factual issues are stated and they 3 can only be decided after trial. This Court cannot interfere in the said case at this juncture.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that incidents would have been exaggerated and have to be looked into carefully. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it was held that criminal proceedings can be quashed and guidelines were also given.
8. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], it is held that when there are vague and omnibus allegations against family members of the husband, in such instances, High Court can quash the proceedings invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. Even according to the complainant, the allegations against these petitioners are that they were supporting A1 and instigated A1. After marriage, A1 left for Australia and the defacto complainant followed A1 to Australia and there, the defacto complainant and A1 lived together. There are several allegations of 4 harassment against A1, it is stated that these petitioners were calling A1 on phone and abetted the said harassment.
10. Allegations are made against these petitioners, who are residents of Hyderabad that they made phone calls to Australia and at the instance of these petitioners, A1 allegedly harassed the defacto complainant. The statement made is an assumption that these petitioners abetted A1 to harass her. These petitioners calling A1 who is their son and talking to him would not amount to instigating A1 to harass the defacto complainant. Except making bald allegations of abetting A1 and also that in the presence of these petitioners, jahez articles were taken by A1, are not sufficient to proceed with the prosecution for the alleged offences. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar(supra), the allegations against these petitioners are vague in nature and omnibus allegations of abetting A1 are made. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against these petitioners are liable to be quashed.
5
11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 and A3 in CC No.218 of 2015 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 01.11.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.12718 of 2018 Date: 01.11.2022.
kvs