HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2801 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A2, A3 and A7 in C.C.No.14243 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that her marriage with A1 was performed on 09.04.2018. It was informed that A1 was working in Australia, having temporary resident visa and processing of permanent resident was underway. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 15 tulas of gold and jahez articles were given. It is further alleged that on the very first night of the marriage, A1 threatened that she would have to face several issues in the family. Her husband and in-laws started harassing her physically and mentally dissatisfied with the gold and jahez articles.
3. It is further alleged that all the in-laws have ill-treated her and also removed the maid servant stating that she has to work in the house and at the instance of parents-in-law and others, A1 used to misbehave with her. Mother-in-law and sister-in-law took gold ornaments and kept in their custody. Though the 2nd respondent was informed that she would be permitted to do job after marriage, however, she was restricted from doing any job and had to do household work. Due to the continuous harassment, she suffered 2 serious mental trauma. Though she was admitted in the hospital with gynecological problems, the husband and relatives never visited her in the hospital. On 15.08.2018 and 30.08.2018, there was a quarrel in the house on petty issues. The husband and relatives started insisting that the 2nd respondent should take khula divorce, which means that the wife has to give divorce to her husband in accordance with Muslim Personal law.
4. On account of continuous harassment, the 2nd respondent filed a criminal complaint and the same was registered and investigated by the police. After investigation, chare sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide C.C No.14243 of 2019.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that divorce in between A1 and the 2nd respondent had taken place on 19.02.2019 whereas, the complaint was filed two months thereafter 12.04.2019. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 398), quashed the prosecution on the ground that the husband had divorced his wife and thereafter, complaint was filed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the complaint is given in detail and all 3 the allegations made are required to be proved in trial and at the threshold, prosecution cannot be quashed.
7. In the judgment of Mohammad Miyan's case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that since divorce had happened 4 ½ years prior to lodging the complaint offence under Section 498-A of IPC would not be attracted. The facts narrated in the said judgment are not applicable to the present facts. The complaint specifically narrates several instances of A1 harassing the 2nd respondent. However, in the case of other accused, though complaint runs into six pages and what all she stated against other accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 are that they were treating her as servant maid and also instigating A1, who in turn misbehaved and harassed the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent stated that the jehaz articles and jewelry were in the custody of accused, no such details of the articles or the jewelry is mentioned. Further the complaint is made two months after the divorce.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband cannot be made basis to continue criminal prosecution against them. In the said circumstances, the prayer of A1 is liable to be dismissed. However, the 4 proceedings against A2, A3 and A7, against whom general and vague allegations are made, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition against A1 is dismissed. The proceedings against A2, A3 and A7 in C.C.No.14243 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.02.2023 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2801 OF 2021 Date:14.02.2023 kvs 6