HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3269 of 2015
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against petitioners in Crime No.39 of 2015 of W.P.S, Begumpet, Secunderabad on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A1 who filed complaint alleging that these petitioners were harassing her, for which reason, Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone registered Crime No.39 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 498- A and 506 of IPC.
3. It is alleged in the complaint by the 2nd respondent that marriage with the 1st petitioner had taken place on 20.05.2009 according to Christian customs. Thereafter, they were blessed with a son, who was aged 5 years at the time of filing complaint. The petitioners have harassed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant mentally and physically for the reason of additional dowry. She further alleges that 1st petitioner/husband was assaulting her physically with hands and legs and also behaved in a sadistic 2 manner. Panchayats were also held thrice and the elders advised them to live peacefully for a period of six months. However, immediately after six months, 1st petitioner caught hold of her hair and assaulted her. Thereafter she filed complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are vague allegations in the complaint made by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have applied for mutual consent divorce before the Family Court. There is suppression of material facts in the complaint written by the 2nd respondent and there is no consistency of allegations in Telugu written complaint and English written complaint. The 1st petitioner has filed complaint against the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and the Police Station, Marredpally investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the 2nd respondent, which is pending adjudication. It is apparent that false allegations were made as seen from her deposition in the maintenance case. There are several contradictions and there are no specific allegations which are leveled against the petitioners. In 3 the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to quash the proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments; i) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335; ii) Sunder Babu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 244; iii) State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V.Pavithran [(1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 340] and argued that when the allegations are vague and improbable, the case has to be quashed. He further submits that when the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with a malafide intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance, such proceedings have to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case is at the stage of investigation and unless the case is investigated, true facts would not come to light. He further states that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners, for which reason also, petition has to be dismissed.
6. As seen from the complaint, the allegation against petitioners 2 to 4 is that they have abetted the acts of harassment by the 1st 4 petitioner/A1. Further, the complaint and other evidence filed in the criminal case were produced by the petitioners. The maintenance case is filed only against husband/1st petitioner/A1 and in the entire affidavit filed in the maintenance case, there is no whisper about the acts of the petitioners 2 to 4. Though the evidence in the maintenance case cannot be considered, only for the purpose of adjudicating the present proceedings regarding the relatives who are A2 to A4 living separately, the said averments made in the maintenance case can be looked into to assess the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the relatives of the husband.
7. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 162), the Honourable Supreme Court held that allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law and that there cannot be any criminal case on the basis of false and omnibus allegations. In the present case also except stating that petitioners 2 to 4 were abetting A1 to inflict injury on the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, there are no specific allegations, for 5 which reason, continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioners 2 to 4 in Crime No.39 of 2015 of W.P.S, Begumpet, Secunderabad on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
8. However, petition against A1 is dismissed and police shall conclude the investigation without arresting A1 keeping in view the cases which are filed between the 1st petitioner/A1 and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
9. Accordingly, petition is partly allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27 .10.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.3269 of 2015 Date: 27.10.2022.
kvs 7 8