Telangana High Court
Mr. Gorige Mahesh vs Mrs. Navya Valluri on 6 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1154 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 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional Metroplitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri, Uppal, at Hastinapuram, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner NO.1 on 30.08.2018 and that the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, 37 tulas of gold and other articles towards dowry as per the demand of petitioners. After their marriage, they lived in peace for some time and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 began to 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 harass the respondent No.1 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry, at the instigation of petitioner NOs.2 to 6. It was stated that though respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1 attended counseling time and again, there was no change in the behavior of petitioners. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered case against the petitioners and on completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Dharmesh DK.Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent NO.2 - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and that the allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged by respondent No.1. He contended that except framing baseless and vague allegations, neither the averments made in complaint, nor 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 the averments made in charge sheet would show specific set of allegations against the petitioners. He lamented that without any basis the respondent NO.1 has stated in her complaint averments that she was being harassed by the petitioners on the grounds that she got less dowry, demand of additional dowry, forceful admission for a beauty parlor course, taunting that petitioner No.1 would find more beautiful girl than her and necking her out of the house. He reiterated that the said allegations were absolutely false and that the complaint was lodged against the petitioners to tarnish their image in the society. He asserted that the complaint was lodged with long delay mentioning old dates of alleged incidents, such as, 20.10.2019, 18.12.2020, 21.11.2021, 03.02.2022, 12.03.2022 and 01.04.2022. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent NO.1, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the complaint 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 itself would show that there are set of serious allegations against the petitioners. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.1 categorically submitted that the petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent NO.1, petitioner No.2 is his mother and other petitioners are his relatives, and that petitioner No.1 had mercilessly harassed respondent No.1, and demanded additional dowry coming under the instigation of other petitioners. Therefore, while advocating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners require trial, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 due to which they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short 'MOU') which requires petitioner No.1 to return all the dowry taken at the time marriage and other articles as well, along with Rs.25 lakhs towards permanent alimony, whereas, it is the specific stand of respondent No.1 that petitioner No.1 had failed to pay the said amount and the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 allegations leveled against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 who are mother and other relatives of petitioner No.1 are with regard to harassment for want of additional dowry.
7. On meticulously perusing the material placed on record, it is seen that except alleging that at the instigation of petitioner Nos.2 to 6, petitioner NO.1 harassed the respondent No.1 mentally and physically, there are no other allegations against them. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another 1, in paragraph No.35, it was 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 when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or 1 Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 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."
{
8. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta (supra), it is noted that the averments in the 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 complaint have to disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences. In the present case, except omnibus allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, there are no other specific allegations against them, who are the mother and other relatives of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 2 has observed that the family members, who are residing away from accused No.1, cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, the allegations against them are considered to be vague and without any proper evidence. 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 petitioner Nos.2 to 6, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
9. That apart, perusal of the statement of LW.1/respondent No.1 would reveal that admittedly the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 agreed to compromise their matrimonial dispute by way of entering into MOU but 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1154 of 2023 the petitioner No.1 had allegedly violated the terms thereof and had allegedly cheated respondent NO.1 by taking her signatures over a white paper. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the same requires full-fledged trial and the proceedings against the petitioner No.1 cannot be quashed at this stage.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner NOs.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6 in CC.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional Metroplitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri, Uppal, at Hastinapuram, are hereby quashed, while permitting the trial Court to proceed further against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.11.2024 PT