THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9259 OF 2021
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/A2 & A3, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.844/2021 on the file of II Additional First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against them are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3. The case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that she was married to Accused No.1 on 19.08.2018. At the time of marriage 30 Tulas of gold, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs towards dowry and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to her sister-in-law. At the time of marriage, Accused No.1 and 1st petitioner herein (A2)- mother-in-law were living in Banglore. After the marriage at the instigation of these petitioners, the Accused No.1-husband started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally for 2 additional dowry. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to the account of Accused No.1. Even then, A1 and these petitioners continued harassment by beating and abusing the 2nd respondent. Unable to bear the harassment, the 2nd respondent went to her parents' house. Thereafter, Accused No.1 promised in the presence of the elders that he would take care of the 2nd respondent-wife. When the mother of the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent went to Banglore, Accused No.1 and his mother-1st petitioner herein did not open the door, and the 2nd respondent was forced stay outside of house for four hours. The 1st petitioner (A2) and A1 insisted that unless dowry is brought, they will not allow her into the house. After some time, on several requests made by the mother of the 2nd respondent, they allowed the 2nd respondent to enter the house and sent back her mother. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was beaten by her husband (A1) and 1st petitioner (A2). The 2nd respondent called Police in Banglore and with the help of one of their known persons namely Mallikarjun, the 2nd respondent went to the Police Station. Both Accused No.1 (husband) and Accused No.2 (mother-in-law) went to the Police Station, but they denied any kind of harassment. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned to her parents' house at Hyderabad and gave birth to a son on 14.10.2019. Though the 3 same was informed to her husband and A2 -mother-in-law, there was no response. Accordingly, complaint was filed on 17.11.2020.
4. The Police registered the case and filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 and these petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that bald and vague allegations are made against the 1st petitioner(A2)-mother-in-law who is resident of Warangal and 2nd petitioner (A3)-sister-in-law who is resident of Kukatpally, Hyderabad. All the instances alleged have taken place in Banglore. On the basis of the solitary incident that she was asked to stay outside the house for four hours, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against these petitioners. He further submitted that the husband (A1) filed divorce petition in HM.OP.No.94 of 2019. After the said divorce petition was filed, a complaint was filed as an afterthought, only to force the husband and these petitioners. The divorce petition was still pending. Thereafter, due to the constant harassment by the 2nd respondent and her family members, the 1st petitioner-mother-in-law and Accused No.1 (husband) filed WP.No.21561 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 08.09.2021 directed the 2nd respondent and 4 other not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1456 of 2015 dated 31.08.2023 in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1, wherein proceedings have been quashed against the petitioners therein for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code, stating that no case was made out.
7. He also relied on the Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar 2, wherein 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.
8. He further relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 3 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 2 (2022) 6 SCC 599 3 (2010) 7 SCC 667 5 wherein it is 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.
9. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that there are serious allegations levelled against these petitioners. Accused No.1 (husband) had taken an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as additional dowry. Even at the time of marriage Rs.20 lakhs was taken as dowry. Both these petitioners are responsible for harassing the 2nd respondent. At the instance of these petitioners, Accused No.1 (husband) was harassing the 2nd respondent. Even at Banglore, the 1st petitioner was present and she did not allow the 2nd respondent to enter into the house. According to the complaint, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to the account of husband (A1).
10. It is admitted that the 1st petitioner (mother-in-law) was staying at Warangal and at times also at Banglore along with 6 A1. When the solitary incident which happened at Banglore, the 1st petitioner (A2) was in Banglore. The said incident happened when the 2nd respondent was pregnant. She went to the premises of Accused No.1 and it is allege that Accused No.1 and 1st petitioner (A2) did not allow her into the house.
11. In the complaint filed and also in the statement made by 2nd respondent, it is alleged that A1 and these petitioners were beating her and also harassing her. The said allegation is vague and general. No such incidents were narrated except the incident which happened in Banglore. Even at Banglore, on that day, A1-husband was present in the house and it is not specifically stated that 1st petitioner (A2) had done any act on the said date. Both A1 and A2 were called to the police station where they pleaded ignorance. It is not in dispute that A1 had filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty by the 2nd respondent. There after the present complaint was filed. There are specific allegations against A1 (husband). However, there are no specific allegations as far as these petitioners are concerned.
7
12. Placing reliance on the Judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar (supra 2) and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (supra 3), the proceedings against these petitioners are liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners herein/A2 & A3 in C.C.No.844/2021 on the file of II Additional First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.09.2023 tk 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9259 OF 2021 Dt. 14.09.2023 tk