Telangana High Court
Sri.Eppakayala Shiva Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10697 OF 2023
ORDER :
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 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1542 of 2023 pending on the file of I-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Athvelly, Medchal, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P.Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.08.2023 at 14.00 hours the defacto complainant/2nd respondent gave complaint to the police stating that the marriage between 1st petitioner and herself is a love marriage and at the time of marriage her parents have not given any dowry. As such, she gave Rs.1.2 Lakhs from her PF amount. It is further stated that after six months of their marriage, the mother of 1st petitioner started instigating him about the dowry and harassed her mentally and physically. On 18.07.2023 at about 18.00 hours the mother of 1st petitioner necked her out from the house for bringing additional dowry, otherwise she would perform another marriage to the 1st 2 petitioner, by giving divorce to the 2nd respondent. The 1st petitioner also beat her by bolting the door from inside and caused injury on her neck, due to which the 2nd respondent was taken to Malla Reddy Hospital, for treatment by her parents and since then, she is staying with her parents. Hence, the complaint.
3. Basing on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.602 of 2024 under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and after completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet.
4. Heard Sri S.Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent has no interest in the matrimonial society with the 1st petitioner and she used to send whats ap messages to get divorce. The 1st petitioner has taken loan of Rs.1.25 lakhs from L & T Finance and from other financial institutions to take care of the 2nd respondent for the day-to-day necessities and till today he is paying EMI for the above loans. The second petitioner is the mother of 1st petitioner and she does not live with the 2nd 3 respondent and 1st petitioner at Perzadiguda and under the pressure of parents of the 2nd respondent, the police have registered a case against the petitioners in Jeedimetla Police station. Learned counsel further contended that the 2nd respondent along with 100 members have come to the house of the 1st petitioner and threatened him to give divorce, as such, the 1st petitioner gave complaint in Medipally Police station. The allegations against the petitioners are vague. As the marriage itself is a love marriage, there is no question of demanding dowry and further stated that the 2nd respondent herself is not interested in leading the matrimonial life. Further, 2nd petitioner is living separately from 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, therefore, there is no role of 2nd petitioner in this case. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against these petitioners.
6. Though, notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on her behalf. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations against the petitioners clearly prove that there is harassment and demand for dowry. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 4
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations as seen from the charge sheet are that the petitioners harassed the 2nd respondent for additional dowry, as she did not bring any dowry and as the 2nd respondent has not conceived, the 2nd petitioner used to harass her mentally and physically for not having kids. According to the charge sheet, the 2nd petitioner forced the 2nd respondent to leave the house, but according to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner never lived with the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. The prosecution case is that 2nd petitioner also lived with 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, and necked out her from the house. Petitioners also filed whats ap chating showing the 2nd respondent forced for divorce and the 1st petitioner tried to convince her. The allegation that 2nd respondent is not interested in 1st petitioner to lead conjugal life, requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners is not maintainable.
8. However, 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 offences as alleged by the Police.
5
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, 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 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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1542 of 2023 pending on the file of I-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Athvelly, Medchal, Cyberabad against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :07.06.2024 Rds