HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 574 of 2017, on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent on 24.07.2015 alleging that the 1st petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are parents-in-law. Their marriage took place on 27.10.2001 and on 25.12.2004, 2nd respondent gave birth to a daughter. In the year 2006, she was transferred to City Bank, Chennai Branch, Madras. She was harassed to get Rs.10.00 lakhs for purchase of flat.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Family Court Judge at Hyderabad by order dated 21.10.2013 in FCOP No.573 of 2013 granted divorce to the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. An attempt was made before the Family Court to set aside the exparte divorce orders. However, the Family Court, by order dated 17.03.2016 refused to entertain the application to set aside the exparte order. 2 Even prior to the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Transfer Petition (C) No.1093 of 2012 requesting the court to transfer the proceedings. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the proceedings from Family Court Chennai to Family Court at Hyderabad. Though the divorce petition was transferred at 2nd Respondent's instance, she did not prosecute the same and divorce was granted.
4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Miyan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. In the said case, the wife filed criminal case which was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was filed four years after the divorce had taken place. Taking into consideration that there was divorce by the time of filing the complaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the quash petition.
1 Criminal Appeal No.1048 of 2018, dated 21.08.2018 3
5. On behalf of the Respondents it was argued that the divorce was an ex-parte order and cannot be made basis to quash the proceedings. Further the prosecution has to be given an opportunity to make out its case by adducing evidence during trial, for which reasons, the petition has to be dismissed.
6. In the present case, vague allegation against these petitioners is that there was demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Apart from the said allegation, there are no other allegations to substantiate that any offence is made out under Section 498-A IPC. Further the complaint was lodged after an year of divorce. The question of demanding money after divorce is highly improbable.
7. The allegation of mere demand made in the complaint, without any consequent physical or mental harassment, does not fall within the meaning of 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498-A of IPC. In the present circumstances, this Court 4 deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No. 574 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
9. Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 20.01.2023 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 of 2022 Date: 20.01.2023 kvs