HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4833 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in Charge Sheet No.53 of 2019 registered as P.R.C No.9 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.
2. The petitioners are parents-in-law of the deceased. The 2nd respondent is the father of the deceased, who lodged a complaint stating that his deceased daughter's marriage was performed with A1 on 25.05.2011 and dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, 15 tulas of gold, and other articles were given. The deceased started living with her husband at Hyderabad and they were blessed with a son on 20.04.2012. At the time of cradle ceremony of the son, there was demand for additional dowry. On the eve of Deepavali festival also, the deceased daughter and others came to the house and it was informed by the deceased that the in-laws were demanding for additional dowry. The said demand of additional dowry was again made at the time of Ugadi festival. One lakh rupees was paid as 2 additional dowry. Again on 08.05.2014, A1 and all accused demanded for Rs.3.00 lakhs for purchasing car and informed that if the said amount was not given they would not take back the deceased. The deceased confronted A1 about demand of Rs.3.00 lakhs and A1 grew wild and dragged the deceased into the bath room and forcibly made her to consume acid. As the deceased was found lying in bath room in an unconscious state, she was shifted to Hospital. All the accused pacified the 2nd respondent not to lodge complaint as they would take care of the medical expenses of his daughter. However, the expenses were not met by the accused as promised and the condition of the deceased deteriorated, for which reason a complaint was lodged on 19.07.2014. On 20.07.2014, the deceased died and section of law was altered and after investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is a delay of nearly 69 days in lodging the 3 complaint after the alleged incident of A1 forcibly making the deceased consume acid. A statement was recorded on 11.05.2014 by Constable at Apollo Hospital, wherein the 2nd respondent stated that on 08.04.2014, the deceased came to their house at Mahabunagar to attend function. Her daughter was suffering with ill-health and was upset. On 10.05.2014, when the family members were present in the hall, the deceased went into the wash room and came out vomiting, for which reason, she was initially shifted to S.S Nursing Home and later shifted to Apollo Hospital. Even according to the medical record, there were no external injuries on the face or any part of the body to substantiate beating by A1 and making deceased to forcibly consume acid. In the said circumstances, it is apparent that a false case has been cooked up against A1 and others when the deceased consumed acid in her house at Mahabubnagar. Finally, it was argued that A4 and A5 filed application vide CRLP.No.6427 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 15.10.2019 allowed the same and quashed the proceedings against A4 and A5.
4
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments: i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599]; ii) Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667]; iii) State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582]; iv) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana[(2021) 6 SCC 1]; v) Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622]; vi) State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and others [2020(1) ALD (Crl.) 185 (SC); vii) Girish Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4529].
5. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot enter into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the accused. However, on the basis of the allegations, if the said allegations do not make out any offence, this Court under inherent powers can quash the proceedings.
6. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless 5 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.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (supra) 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.
8. In the present case, an omnibus allegation is made that all the accused demanded for additional dowry at the time of Ugadi, Deepavali and Dasara festivals. Except stating that there was such demand, there are no instances that are against these petitioners, who are parents-in-law that they have in any manner assaulted or abused the deceased to fulfill such demand. Unless there is evidence by giving specific instances that consequent to unlawful demand for additional 6 dowry, the deceased was either ill-treated or harassed or physically abused, it cannot be said that mere demand would fall within the definition of cruelty. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar (supra) and also in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand's case (supra), the Courts have to be vigilant in permitting the prosecution of the relatives of the husband, since there is tendency of false implication on the basis of vague or omnibus allegations.
9. As already discussed above, the allegations made against these petitioners are omnibus in nature stating that they have demanded for additional dowry. In the said circumstances, relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding prosecuting the relatives of the husband, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in Charge Sheet No.53 of 2019 registered as P.R.C 7 No.9 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:18.01.2023 kvs 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.4833 OF 2021 Date:18.01.2023 kvs 9