THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.833 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at ramannapet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 498-A of IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The 2nd respondent is wife of A1, who filed the complaint stating that she was married to A1 in the year 2014 and at the time of marriage, Rs.28.00 lakhs worth cash, gifts and other household articles were given. Four years after the marriage, she was being harassed by A1 and she tried to commit suicide at her parents' house. Since two years prior to filing the complaint, she was residing at her parents' house. According to her complaint, cause of harassment was A1/husband and these petitioners. A1 and these petitioners visited the house of 2nd respondent and picked up quarrel and damaged articles in the house. When the neighbours came to the house, these 2 petitioners and A1 left. Thereafter complaint was lodged with police, who after investigation filed charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there are no specific allegations which are leveled against these petitioners and on the basis of vague and bald statements that these petitioners were responsible for harassing her, proceedings cannot go on against the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there are specific allegations in the complaint for which reason this Court should leave the case to the trial Court to decide after full-fledged trial and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. As seen from the complaint, the 2nd respondent was living with her parents since two years prior to the complaint. Even according to the complaint, the reason for staying with her parents was harassment by A1 for additional dowry. On 13.04.2020, these petitioners allegedly went to the house of the parents of the 2nd respondent where she was staying and asked her to join A1 and continue marital life with A1. 3 However the 2nd respondent insisted that she would only settle the issues in the presence of elders, for which reason these petitioners angered by her response damaged the household articles. In the melee when the neighbours came to the house, these petitioners allegedly left.
6. There is no allegation that these petitioners at any point of time abetted the alleged harassment by A1 nor the petitioners have asked for any additional dowry. Not a single incident is narrated wherein these petitioners have subjected the 2nd respondent to cruelty. The incident that occurred on 13.04.2020 in the house of the 2nd respondent's parents is the cause for implication of these petitioners. The petitioners are admittedly relatives of the 2nd respondent and it is the case of the 2nd respondent that these petitioners had allegedly gone there to convince her to join with A1. It cannot be said that when the 2nd respondent and her parents had no objection to the petitioners' entry into their house, it cannot be said that it amounts to criminal trespass. After discussing, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that she insisted that there shall be settlement in front of the elders, for which reason, these 4 petitioners allegedly ransacked and damaged the household items. The description and any such household items which were damaged by these petitioners is not stated. Neither the details of the damage nor the articles were stated in the complaint. Further, it is not specifically mentioned as to who amongst the petitioners had committed any kind of mischief. For the reason of the vagueness in the statements of witnesses and in the background of the marital disputes in between the 2nd respondent and A1 whereby these petitioners have gone to convince the 2nd respondent to join with A1, the case against these petitioners cannot be continued. None of the ingredients of either Sections 448, 427 and 498-A of IPC are made out against these petitioners/A2 to A7.
7. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
5
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.
9. Relying on the above judgments, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A7 are liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.833 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.04.2023 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022 Dt.18.04.2023 kvs