HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4836 & 10581 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
1. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in Criminal Petition No.4836
of 2022 and Petitioner/A1 in Criminal Petition No. 10581 of 2022
are the parents-in-law and husband respectively being prosecuted
in the same case, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of
by way of this Common Order.
2. It is the case of 2nd respondent that she was married to A1 on
18th March, 2017 at Kothagudem Town and at the time of marriage Rs.24.00 lakhs worth stridhan was given. Immediately after marriage the 2nd respondent noticed that the attitude of her husband changed and every day he used to spend time with his friends and come late in the night. When questioned, the husband insisted that Rs.30.00 lakhs additional dowry should be given to cohabit with her. On 3rd April, 2017 he left for Germany without taking the 2nd respondent. Later the 2nd Respondent went to Germany and joined A1. In Germany also the husband and the 2nd respondent did not lead normal marital life, however on 3rd December 2017, A1 beat the 2nd respondent, took her jewelry and sent her to India.
2
3. Aggrieved by the harassment of her husband and in-laws demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs, the 2nd respondent filed a written complaint with the police on 26th February, 2021. Having registered the said complaint, police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent has filed for divorce and also case under the DVC Act. There is material suppression of facts by the 2nd respondent about the agreement that was entered into in between A1 and the 2nd respondent on 25th December 2017. In accordance with the said agreement Rs.32.00 lakhs was agreed to be given to the 2nd respondent out of which an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs were deposited into the account of the 2nd respondent. Suppressing the said issue and settlement in between the parties, false complaint was made by the 2nd respondent only to harass the husband and her in-laws. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal [(1991) 2 SCJ 351].
5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd respondent that though there was an agreement, the petitioners failed to adhere to the conditions of the agreement and since there was continuous harassment both in India and also when she joined the husband in Germany, proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the agreement dated 25th December 2017 and also proof of depositing Rs.15.00 lakhs into complainant's account. The complaint filed under the DVC Act and also the divorce petition are filed along with the material papers. As seen from the petitions filed for the maintenance and also divorce, the main allegation appears to be that the A1 is impotent. The 2nd respondent requested the Family Court to grant divorce on the basis of impotency of A1.
7. The 2nd respondent had deliberately suppressed the allegation of A-1 not able to lead a normal marital life for the reason of impotency. Further the agreement that was entered into in between the parties on 25th December 2017 and also taking an amount of 4 Rs.15.00 lakhs for the purpose of filing an application by the 2nd respondent were suppressed. The main allegation in the DVC complaint and also the divorce application filed by the 2nd respondent is that A1 was impotent and the marriage never consummated. The differences that arose in between the spouses was for the reason of the alleged impotency of A1. The said fact is also suppressed by the 2nd respondent in the complaint and the investigation does not reveal that it was mentioned either by the 2nd respondent or any of the relatives of the 2nd respondent that A1 was impotent. However the criminal complaint reads that for the reason of demand of Rs.30.00 lakhs additional dowry, A1 did not lead marital life with the 2nd respondent. Both the versions are contradictory. Except stating that demand of Rs.30.00 lakhs was made by petitioners in India and also in Germany, there is no other allegation.
8. As claimed by the 2nd respondent, if the main allegation is impotecy of A1, unable to lead normal life with the 2nd respondent, the question of demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs is highly improbable. Further, the agreement which was entered into on 25.12.2017 specifically states that A1 cannot perform sexual acts. It is further mentioned that both the parties have agreed to 5 cancel their marriage and obtain divorce. There are seven witnesses who are parties to the said agreement. As already stated when the parties have determined to end their marriage and the 2nd respondent accepting an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs as permanent alimony and having received part of the amount, the allegation that the petitioners were harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs cannot be believed.
9. Both for the reasons of suppressing material facts in the complainant and also the improbability of the allegations made in the complaint regarding demand of additional dowry, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings. However, it is informed to the Court that the remaining balance in accordance with the MOU entered to in between the parties would be paid. The said aspect is also considered by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the remaining balance would be paid within a period of eight weeks.
10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C.No.807 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, are hereby quashed. 6
11. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.03.2023 kvs 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.P.Nos.4836 and 10581 of 2022 Dated: 10.03.2023 kvs