Telangana High Court
Mr. Mohammed Feroz Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12857 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1049 of 2023 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1967 (for short 'DP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against her husband/petitioner No.1/accused No.1, father in law/petitioner No.2/accused No.2 and sister in law/petitioner No.3/accused No.3, stating that during her marriage with petitioner No.1 her parents gave 20 tulas of gold towards dowry and fulfilled all the other formalities, as per the demands of her in-laws. She alleged that after marriage the petitioners demanded Rs.10,00,000/- to 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 enable her husband to travel to Canada and on fulfilling the same, they have subsequently demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as well. It is alleged that petitioner No.3 along with one Yousuf, planned to kill respondent No.2 and later on the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 harassed and forced her to give divorce to petitioner No.1.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners, whereunder, they were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Khaja Aijazuddin, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are false, vague and baseless. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 and contended that as per the said judgment if the allegations 1 (2019) 14 SCC 350 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 set out in the complaint, along with the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., does not constitute offence, the proceedings against the accused persons are liable to be quashed. He lamented that the averments placed on record would prima facie not disclose any offence, as alleged against the petitioners. He asserted that except mere allegations, the respondent No.2 has filed no document in support of her contention of demand of additional dowry and the fulfillment of the same and alleged that the respondent No.2 has filed complaint against the petitioners only with an intention to defame them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand 2 and averred that it is categorically held in the said judgment that in matrimonial disputes, the wife/complainant cannot rope the entire family members of the husband in the criminal cases by making omnibus allegations and there must be specific set of allegations against the family members as well. In addition, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 Uttar Pradesh 3 and submitted that the Police failed to follow the law laid down by the above cited judgment and failed to appreciate the quintessential aspect that the alleged demands made by petitioners and the alleged harassment faced by respondent No.2 are without any iota of evidence. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that as per the complaint averments the petitioner No.1 demanded additional dowry and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have time and again harassed the respondent No.2 and pressurized her to give divorce to petitioner No.1. Further, the petitioner No.2 along with one Yousuf has threatened to kill respondent No.2. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the complaint averments, it is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that though her parents gave 20 tulas of gold towards 3 (2012) 10 SCC 741 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 dowry and fulfilled all the demands made by petitioners during her marriage, and also gave Rs.10,00,000/- to enable the petitioner No.1 to travel to Canada, the petitioners demanded additional dowry and also harassed her mentally and physically.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 4, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts 4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is specifically averred in the complaint and the charge sheet, as well, that the petitioner No.1 being permanent resident of Canada has moved to Canada by utilizing the amount given by the parents of respondent No.2 and later tortured her time and again demanding more money. Further, it is specifically alleged that the petitioner No.2 seized the mobile phone of respondent No.2 and pressurized her to not communicate with anyone and isolated the respondent No.2 for a long time. Furthermore, it is also alleged that the petitioner No.2, along with one Yousuf Khan has threatened to kill respondent No.2 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 harassed and hassled the respondent No.2 and also abused her in filthy language. Though learned counsel for petitioner contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless and that there is no iota of evidence, it is not the stage to discuss about the evidence. The prima facie 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023 averments in the complaint itself shows serious allegations which require trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioners.
11. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra 4), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:10.07.2024 PT