HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5940 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A5 and A6 in C.C.No.2018 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 1st respondent is the mother-in-law of A1, who filed the present compliant stating that her daughter Babitha was marred to A1 on 07.08.2016 and at the time of marriage, on specific demand, dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs, Rs.70,000/- diamond ring, 25 tulas of gold and other articles were given. Customary Adapaduchu katnam and other ornaments were also given and performed the marriage in a grand manner. After marriage, the complainant arranged for stay in a three star hotel at Central Court, Hyderabad. From 12.08.2016, A1 and his wife stayed in Central Court Hotel for three days and reception was also arranged. After the couple came back from honeymoon trip, in-laws started harassing her daughter for additional dowry of Acs.2.00 of land at Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet and also house at Kukatpally Housing Board. On 17.8.2016, the complainant's daughter called and informed that she was being ill- 2 treated by her husband and in-laws stating that she was black and the marriage was not performed according to their status and gifts were not given in accordance with their status. On the same day, A1 left to UK. One week thereafter, the complainant's daughter came back to their house stating that in-laws had threatened that she should not return unless additional dowry demands were met. Ten days thereafter, the complainant's husband and others went to the house of A1's parents and convinced them that sufficient dowry would be given and also requested to take care of their daughter. 3 kgs silver was given and also informed that the land would be registered in their name. A1 provided visa and the complainant's daughter went to UK and there she found that A1 was having extra marital relation with other girls. A1 started abusing her physically and mentally on daily basis. Unable to bear the harassment of A1, the complainant's daughter attempted suicide by drinking toilet cleaner. She was taken to the hospital and treated. In the month of May, 2017, A1 tried to kill her by pressing her neck. In the UK, a complaint was filed by her daughter. Both the complainant and her husband went to UK and stayed with their daughter. They were not given food and they had food at a charity. Having stayed in UK for 2 3 months, she came back and requested in-laws to take care of her daughter. However, complainant's daughter was sent away from UK by A1, demanding to fulfill the demand of additional dowry, failing which, she should not return. Due to continuous harassment of complainant's daughter, police complaint was filed on 18.07.2018. The said complaint filed with Women Police Station, South Zone, was investigated and charge sheet was filed against A1 to A6.
3. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that A1 and his wife stayed in a hotel from 12.08.2016 to 16.08.2016 and A1 returned on 17.08.2016. Since, the petitioners, who are permanent residents of America left to US on30.08.2016, the question of harassing the complainant's daughter does not arise. In fact, the complainant's daughter filed petition for divorce which is OP No.146 of 2018 in the Family Court at Hyderabad. The said divorce case was filed on 01.02.2018. In the entire complaint, the statement of witnesses stating that these petitioners had harassed her, there is no specific incident that is narrated. He relied on the judgments; i) Kahkashan Kausar @ 4 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) Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741];
iv) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309] and v) Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 472] and argued that unless there are specific allegations in respect of the relatives of the husband, the proceedings shall not be continued. The Courts have seen that innocent relatives are deliberately implicated in criminal cases on the basis of false allegations and such false implications should be looked into and the courts should come to the rescue of such persons, who are implicated without there being any specific reason.
4. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is often the relatives of the husband, who in fact indulge in harassing the newlywed couple for additional dowry. The allegations about additional dowry and whether these petitioners have harassed her or not are the subject matters of trial 5 to be decided by the trial court after examining the witnesses of the prosecution. An opportunity should be given to the witnesses and be examined by the Court, failing which it will only deny an opportunity to prove the case and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The petitioners being residents of US is not disputed. Admittedly, within a span of ten days from the date of marriage, A1 left to UK and thereafter, the petitioners left to USA. It is highly improbable that within a span of ten days, these petitioners had harassed the complainant's daughter for additional dowry. Even according to the complaint made after marriage, they stayed nearly for five days in Central Court Hotel at Hyderabad. After completion of formalities and other rituals, A1 left to UK.
6. The allegation that the daughter of complainant was subjected to harassment by these petitioners in the back ground of the facts of the present case cannot be believed. In fact, A1 left to UK and thereafter sent Visa for the complainant's daughter. She left for UK and all the major allegations of beating and harassment allegedly happened in UK. She came back from UK and applied for divorce in 6 the month of February, 2018, which is within a span of 1 ½ year from the date of marriage.
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. It also held that there is a tendency of falsely roping in the relatives of the husband and they are undergoing ignominy of a criminal prosecution. Unless there are specific allegations, the prosecution cannot be permitted to continue.
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.
7
9. As discussed above, the role of these petitioners is stated in a vague manner and the allegation that within ten days of the marriage the first respondent's daughter being harassed appears to be unbelievable in the background of the events that are narrated and their staying in a hotel for five days immediately after marriage.
10. In the said circumstances, for the reason of there being vagueness in the allegations levelled against the petitioners, no instances narrated implicating these petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/ A5 and A6 in C.C.No.2018 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.01.2023 kvs 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.5940 OF 2022 Date:18.01.2023 kvs 9