THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1605 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A1 to A5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.334 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that she was earlier married to one Ram Kumar in the year 2006 and they were blessed with a girl by name Sai Praneetha. The 2nd respondent was working as an Engineer in IBM and the 1st petitioner/A1 who was also working in the same office used to move closely with her. When the 2nd respondent's husband Ram Kumar started harassing her, the 1st petitioner/A1 started influencing 2nd respondent to take divorce from her husband Ram Kumar and assured her to take care of her and her child. 2 During the year 2014, the petitioners have allegedly met the 2nd respondent and apologized for A1's interference in her marital life. On account of the constant harassment by Ram Kumar, they went for mutual consent divorce. Thereafter, proposal for marriage of A1 was made and the marriage of 2nd respondent with A1 was performed on 24.03.2018. Both of them went to Kulu for one week, where the 2nd respondent came to know that A1 was unfit to participate in sexual intercourse. During August, 2018 both 2nd respondent and her daughter went to London, stayed in London till October, 2019. During her stay in London, 1st petitioner proposed to purchase a plot situated at Ameenpur, for which the 2nd respondent paid Rs.10 lakhs as advance and also paid the balance sale consideration for purchase of the said plot. Thereafter, A1 started avoiding her. On 26.10.2020 when the 2nd respondent went to A1's house, A1 refused to acknowledge the 2nd respondent as his wife. The other petitioners also abused her in foul language and sent her out of the house. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent stated that only to purchase the property, A1 had planned marriage. It is also alleged that without her consent the plot was registered in the name of A1.
3
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are absolutely no ingredients which are made out against the petitioners to prosecute them criminally for the offences alleged. Even according to the complaint, the 2nd respondent was staying along with her daughter in London and she never stayed with A1 or his family members, accordingly prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is specifically alleged in the complaint that she was married to A1, however the other petitioners disagreed to acknowledge the 2nd respondent as the wife of A1 for which reason cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC is made out.
6. He relied on the Judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and others v. Monica and others 1; Banhisikha Roy vs. Somnath Roy and 1 (2014) 3 SCC 383 4 others 2 and Suhas Kiran Bhaskar Singapogu and others v. State of T.S and others 3.
7. The marriage of 2nd respondent with A1 is not in dispute. Further, the 2nd respondent herself claims that she was living in London along with her daughter. When the 2nd respondent went to the house of A1, it is alleged that the petitioners have threatened her for additional dowry and pushed her out from the house by saying that their marriage was not valid.
8. The sole incident which happened on 26.10.2020 cannot be made basis to prosecute the petitioners 2 to 5. Even assuming that petitioners have stated that the marriage was invalid and asked her to leave house, it is the result of the 2nd respondent staying at London for more than a year and A1 had not accompanied her. In the present facts of the case, when the 2nd respondent lived in London and on the day she came back to the marital house, the petitioners 2 to 5 threatened her stating that marriage was invalid, will not amount to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the peculiar facts of the case, the allegation that the petitioners 2 to 5 had 2 (2005) 12 SCC 500 3 MANU/TL/2025/2022 5 demanded for dowry cannot be believed. PW2 was an independent woman who stayed in London along with her daughter for a period of one year and was also working. The bald allegation that the petitioners 2 to 5 have harassed for additional dowry in the present facts of the case, cannot be believed.
9. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 cannot be permitted to continue. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.334 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally. However, the Court shall proceed against Accused No.1.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.04.2023 tk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1605 OF 2023 Dt. 25.04.2023 tk