THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5345 OF 2019
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/2 & 3 in C.C.No.1140 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir- Yadagiri, erstwhile Nalgonda District.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that she was married to A1 on 27.05.2015. The father-in-law passed away and mother-in-law was suffering from mental ill-health at the time of marriage. Petitioners herein, who are sister of A1 and her husband demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs dowry at the time of marriage. However, 11 tulas gold and Rs.1.00 lakh cash was given. The 2nd respondent was working as software engineer and at the instance of these petitioners, she was forced to give her salary to the husband/A1. However, when she refused, she was necked out from the house. Her parents convinced and left her with A1 and she was paying Rs.15,000/- for three months and thereafter, she became pregnant. Again, the entire salary was asked to be given along with her ATM details. She purchased a house for sale consideration of Rs.33,60,000/- and the amount of Rs.70,037/- 2 was being deducted from the salary towards EMI. She gave birth to a female child and harassment continued since the amount was not sufficient to bear the expenditure for the child and she was asked to go away.
3. O the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent on 25.03.2019, charge sheet was filed against A1 and these petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd petitioner/A3 is a practicing Advocate and living separately at Nallakunta. A1 and 2nd respondent were living in Lingampally area and both purchased house by taking loan from the Bank. They have nothing to do with the marital affairs of A1 and the 2nd respondent. In fact, the 2nd respondent left the house of A1 on 21.10.2018 from Lingampally and was staying at her parents' house till filing of the complaint. On 09.01.2019, A1 had filed divorce application which is pending before the Family Court at Kukatpally. He had also lodged complaint with the Station House Officer, Bibinagar and copies were also sent to DCP, Bhongir, Rachakonda Commissionerate, ACP, Bhongir. However, no action was initiated against the 2nd respondent. 3
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that there are serious allegations against these petitioners and specifically made regarding demand of dowry and assaulting the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. It is mentioned in the complaint that she was forced to part with her salary, which constitutes an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, petition has to be dismissed.
6. It is admitted by both the sides that these petitioners were living separately even before the marriage of A1 and 2nd Respondent. Though the address shown in the charge sheet of A1 is shown as Nallakunta, but he was not staying at the said place. A1 and 2nd respondent after marriage were living separately. A1 had to take care of his mother, who admittedly was mentally unsound.
7. From the complaint lodged by A1 on 03.01.2019 and subsequent divorce application on 09.01.2019, serious allegations of harassment and cruelty are attributed to the 2nd respondent/wife . Even according to the complaint, the 2nd respondent, A1 and his mother were living at Bibinagar. In the divorce application, A1 had stated that the 2nd respondent was 4 insisting that the mother of A1 should be left at Old age home, failing which, she threatened to commit suicide.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083).
11. In the case of Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.2070 of 2012, dated 14.12.2012, the Hon'ble 5 Supreme Court held that in the back ground of vague allegations, the proceedings were quashed in the FIR against sister-in-law.
12. In the case of Kartik Chandra Majee alias Kartik Chand Majee and others v. State of Jharkhand and another ((2019) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 747), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings since it was found that there was no specific role attributed. However, criminal proceedings were initiated to put pressure on the husband and relatives. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
13. In the present case, A1 was working and so also, the 2nd respondent with different employers. A1 was also taking care of his mother, who was mentally ill. They were staying at Bibinagar and these petitioners were staying at Nallakunta, which is at a traveling distance of nearly 1 ½ hours. Petitioners have their own family to look after and the allegations that these petitioners were interfering and instigating A1 appears to be highly improbable. By the time A1 and 2nd respondent were married, these petitioners were married and living separately.
14. Criminal complaint was filed against 2nd respondent by A1 and also filed divorce application on the ground of cruelty. Nearly three months after the divorce application was filed, criminal 6 complaint was made before the police making vague allegations against these petitioners.
15. Following the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners since continuance of criminal proceedings against these petitioners on vague and bald allegations amounts to abuse of process of law.
16. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 & A3 in C.C.No.1140 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir-Yadagiri, erstwhile Nalgonda District, are hereby quashed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 17.10.2023 kvs 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5345 OF 2019 Dt. 17.10.2023 kvs