HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8660 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.114 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise Court), Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
02. The Petitioner No.1 is the accused No.1, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and father of accused No.1.
03. The de-facto complainant, who is respondent No.2 herein, after one year of her marriage, has preferred a complaint initially against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 vide report dated 11.08.2022, which was registered as a 2 case in FIR.No.83 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no iota of allegations against the present petitioners either in the complaint or in the FIR. But subsequently, upon the investigation, the petitioners- accused were roped into the present case and charge-sheet has been filed against them for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 6 were quashed by this Court vide Orders dated 14.08.2023 in CRL.P.No.5898 of 2023.
05. On perusal of the report, it is evident that the marriage between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant took place on 25.11.2020 at M.B.R Gardens Function Hall, Ponugudu Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it was an arranged 3 marriage. Later, the de-facto complainant joined the matrimonial home at Gaddipally Village and thereafter, shifted to Hyderabad and lived happily. Later, disputes arouse between them. Further, accused No.1 got employment in United States of America and he left to U.S.A., and subsequently, de-facto complainant also shifted to U.S.A., and till then she stayed with her parents. After joining her husband at U.S.A., due to her strange behavior and not extending her help in household works, accused No.1 underwent great mental harassment.
06. Entire allegations in the complaint as well as the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., reveals that accused Nos.2 to 4 have visited the house of the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 while they were staying at Hyderabad and on the instigation of in-laws only, accused No.1 harassed the de- facto complainant. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and no further incriminating material is available to prove the guilt of the 4 petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 or for continuation of proceedings against them.
07. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State contended that FIR cannot be an encyclopedia and during the course of investigation, the Police have laid charge-sheet against the petitioners as their involvement is found and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this juncture.
08. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, wherein it was held as follows:
"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-
intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, 5 become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
6
09. The above Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is to be noted that the innocent persons cannot be suffered on the ground of baseless allegations. In the present case also, except the baseless allegations that at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4 only, accused No.1 harassed the de facto complainant and nothing more is found even in the statement of de facto complainant recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, it is a fit case to quash proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3.
10. In so far as petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, as there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No1, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 cannot be quashed.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.114 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate 7 (Prohibition and Excise Court), Nalgonda, are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 19-OCT-2023 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow.
B/o.KHRM 8 840 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8660 OF 2023 Date: 19-OCT-2023 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow.
B/o.KHRM