Telangana High Court
Gandu Padma vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2618 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 03.06.2021. At the time of marriage, family members of accused No.1 demanded Rs.10 lakhs net cash, 26 thulas of gold and other house hold articles. After second day of marriage, accused No.1 did not move closely with respondent No.2 and behaved rudely. Later, accused No.1 started suspecting her, abusing her in filthy language and beating 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 her. Later, the same was informed by respondent No.2 to her mother-in-law and father-in-law, but they supported accused No.1 and told that he is Sub-Inspector of Police and she should tolerate the torture and also abused her. Sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and her husband also supported accused No.1 and harassed her physically and mentally. Brother of accused No.1 was also supported her in-laws and harassed her. Thereafter, the petitioners demanded to respondent No.2 to ask her parents to register a plot in the name of accused No.1.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.198 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.
4. Heard Sri Allam Nagaraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 No.1- State. Though notice was served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and other witnesses have given similar statements without attributing to any specific role of the petitioners and it is pertinent to note that without attributing any specific role against the petitioners, the alleged offences are not maintainable in the eye of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except stating that they supported accused No.1.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that accused No.1 filed a petition, vide H.M.O.P.No.118 of 2022, under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Additional Senior Civil 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial and the same was allowed but respondent No.2 did not join the conjugal life with accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharathi 1, wherein it is held as under:
"in order to lodge a proper complaint mere mentioned of the section and language of the sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused in commit in the crime."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 , wherein it is held as under:
"However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there 1 (2009) 10 SCC 184 2 SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family nemed in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specifically in matter arising out of the matrimonial bickering it would be clear abuse of legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another 3 , wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as under:
"35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was examined. Therein, it was observed that 3 Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
11. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are allegations against the petitioners. All the family members of accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 and also demanded additional dowry. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024
12. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are that they harassed respondent No.2 by supporting accused No.1, in demanding additional dowry and to register the property in the name accused No.1. When accused No.1 behaved rudely with respondent No.2, the parents of accused No.1 instead of supporting respondent No.2, supported accused No.1. Further, accused No.1 refused to allow respondent No.2 to enter into the house without registering the property on his name. Later, accused No.1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in which neither respondent No.2 contest the case before its disposal not even after passing of the decree to join with accused No.1 as per the information submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta (supra), the averments in the complaint has to disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences. In the present case, except omnibus allegations, there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners, who are the family 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2618 of 2024 members of accused No.1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 4, has observed that the family members, who are residing away from accused No.1, cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the petitioners are not residing along with accused No.1, the allegations against them are considered to be vague. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and that since there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 10.07.2024 SAI 4 (2010) 7 SCC 667