Telangana High Court
Manda Shanmukh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9463 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.5070 of 2022, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 on 21.04.2016 and at the time of marriage parents of respondent No.2 given Rs.1,50,00,000/-, 156 thulas of gold as dowry. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined conjugal life with accused No.1 at Washington DC. Later, accused No.1 along with the other accused used to harass her physically, mentally and also threatened her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint in Crime No.730 of 2021 before the WPS CCS DDPoliceand after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.5070of 2022on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023
3. Heard Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State as well as Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is the elder brother of accused No.1 and is separately residing at Austria with his family since 2007. He further submitted that the petitioner comes to Indian only at the time of family functions. He also submitted that respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioner with false allegations and that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Deepak Goba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1; Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2; Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 3; Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 4; Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others 5; K.Subba Rao v. The State of 1 (2023) 3 SCC 423 2 (2011) 9 SCC 527 3 2021 SCC online SC 3392 4 Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023 Telangana 6'; Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh 7 and Preethi Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another 8 and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is responsible for arising the disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. He further submitted that accused No.1 used to send recordings of the conversion between him and respondent No.2 to the petitioner and upon his instigation, accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2 mentally and physically. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, the petitioner/accused No.3 used to instigate accused No.1 to harass respondent No.2 mentally and physically. Whereas the record shows that the petitioner herein is residing in Austria from 2007, marriage of 6 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4009 7 (2012) 10 SCC 741 8 (2010) 7 SCC 667 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023 accused No.1 and LW.6 was performed in the year 2016. Except attending the marriage, the petitioner herein never stayed with accused No.1 and his wife. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated accused No.1 to harass his wife and accused No.1 used to send recordings to the petitioner. Later, wife of accused No.1 improvised the allegation against petitioner stating that petitioner provided equipment to record incidents between herself and her husband in divorce petition. There is no base for the said allegation and the said allegation neither averred in the complaint nor in the statements of LW.1 or LW.6. It is noteworthy that even according to the 161 statements of witnesses, there is no cogent evidence to prove that the petitioner provided equipment to hear the private conversation of accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Pertinently, except the bald allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.3 to demonstrate that he interfered with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and his wife. Further, the statement of respondent No.2 recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., shows that the petitioner instigated accused No.1 to harass her. Except the above said allegation, there are no specific allegations 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023 against the petitioner to constitute offence under Sections 498- A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the DP Act.
7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 9, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on 9 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023 the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Further, in Preeti Gupta (Supra 8), the Apex Court observed that the family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case. Time and again the Apex Court categorically observed that tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. In the present case, initially complaint filed against astrologer also stating that he is instrumental for disputes between the parties, later while filing charge sheet his name was deleted. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific allegations, it is unjust if the petitioner forced to go through the tribulation of trial i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9463 of 2023 the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. In view thereof, as the petitioner is not residing along with the family of accused No.1, the allegations against him are vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.1 as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court, having respectful agreement with the views taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and there are no other specific allegation against the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.5070 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.11.2024 gms