THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.5185 OF 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in C.C.No.33 of 2011, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State. None appears for the second respondent/de facto complainant. Perused the records.
3. The second respondent filed a complaint before Nallakunta Police Station, Hyderabad and same was registered as Cr.No.64 of 2011 against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet in C.C.No.33 of 2011.
2
4. A-1 is the husband of the first respondent, A-2 is the mother, A-3 is the father and A-4 is the sister of A-1. The second respondent alleged in the complaint that her marriage with A-1 was performed on 25.02.2010 At Venkateshwaraswamy Temple at Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. After the marriage, they stated living together and A-1 started harassing her demanding money and also maintenance expenses. He has also not provided any shelter and food. A-1 also failed to permit her to continue her education and due to his and his family harassment, she is unable to complete her second year ECE. A-1 used to harass her that due to love marriage, he is not getting any money and properties and had he married another lady, he would have got huge dowry. She alleges that she is suffering with her husband and in-laws due to illegal demand of dowry and to get gold ornaments along with property. It is also alleged that A-1, A-2 and the petitioners harassed her as she is only daughter to her parents and her parents are living in U.S.A. Based on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.64 of 2013 for the offences stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed by petitioners/A-3 and A-4. 3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners, only omnibus allegations are leveled against them. The allegations even do not make out a prima facie offence against them. He further submits that the second respondent and A-1 entered into compromise and in OP.No.977 of 2014, decree of divorce on mutual consent was granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad on 27.07.2018. He further submits that DVC case was also filed by the second respondent in DVC.No.164 of 2011 and said case was also dismissed on 09.05.2014 and, therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits to decide the case on merits.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in PREETI GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND1, at para Nos.30, 31 and 32 held as under:
30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.1
(2010) 7 SCC 667 4
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, `cruelty' means:-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
8. Having gone through the law laid down in the judgment of Apex Court stated supra, coming to the facts of the present case, a plain reading of the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet disclose that nothing is alleged against the petitioners and only omni bus allegations made against the petitioners, who are father 5 and sister of A-1 except stating that the second respondent was harassed physically and mentally, taking advantage of her loneliness as her parents are staying in U.S.A. The averments in the charge sheet do not reveal any specific role played by each accused in the alleged harassment and ill-treatment of additional dowry by the petitioners. It is not stated as to what date harassment was done and whether they are living separately or not. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners about the ill-treatment or harassment about subjecting of the second respondent to cruelty to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Prima facie, there are allegations against A-1. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of A-1 and the second respondent was dissolved by obtaining mutual consent divorce and DVC case was also dismissed. Unfortunately, without there being any specific allegations, the petitioners have been implicated and the same would certainly lead to insurmountable harassment and agony to them.
6
9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that since there is no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4, it would be unfair to compel them to undergo the rigmarole of trial. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners to avoid the abuse of process of law by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in C.C.No.33 of 2011, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 21.09.2022 Nvl 7
7. A careful perusal of the allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet, coupled with the statements of witnesses would reveal that they totally revolve around A-1 for having ill-treated and demanded the first respondent to get dowry. There are no specific allegations against A-2 and A-3, who are mother and brother of A-1. The only allegations against A-1 and 8 A-2 in the charge sheet are that they tortured the first respondent mentally and physically and A-3 used to instigate A-1. Except the above allegations, nowhere it alleged in the complaint that A-2 and A-3 made illegal demand of additional dowry or subjected her to cruelty. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the accused approached the parents of the first respondent for an amicable settlement and accordingly, the matter was settled for an amount of Rs.5,61,000/-, besides agreeing to give the gold and costly gift items to the first respondent. The accused also paid Rs.1 lakh in cash, but failed to return jahez articles and other items which includes gold etc. The accused handed over a cheque for Rs.4,61,000/- and when it was presented, it was returned dishonoured. Surprisingly, in the FIR and charge sheet, A-4, who is sister of A-1, was also arrayed, when there are no specific allegations against her.