Telangana High Court
Bojanapally Bucha Reddy A.2 vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2560 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.2 and 3 in C.C.No.9139 of 2022, on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that father of the victim has given complaint on 02.05.2022, stating that her elder daughter marriage was performed with accused No.1 and at the time of marriage he gave 20.00 lakhs cash, 100 tulas gold and promised to gift a plot of 400 Sq Yds. in KPHP colony. After marriage, both of them left for USA, as they are working there. He further stated that accused No.1 subjected his daughter to torture, ill-treated and abused/harassment and cruelty. He further alleged that she gave birth to 2 baby girls and accused No.1 did not like 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 that and used to harass by abusing in filthy language and also demanded for additional dowry. In March 2012, when both accused No.1 and the complainant's daughter came to India, accused No.1 alleged to have abused her daughter and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded the 2nd respondent/complainant to give half share of his property. He further stated that in December 2014, when accused No.1 and complainant's daughter visited India, accused No.1 and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have demanded the 2nd respondent/complainant for transfer of half of his property. Thereafter, her daughter filed criminal complaint against accused No.1 on 22.01.2022 and also gave a complaint in National Commission for Women, NRI on 14.02.2022. Thereafter, 2nd respondent's daughter received notice on 20.04.2022 from the concerned Court at Maryland stating that her husband filed a divorce petition seeking divorce and children custody. All these things have been done by accused No.1 in a premeditated manner in order to ruin his daughter's life. The offences demanding additional dowry and other harassments were committed in India and continued thereafter. Hence, respondent No.2 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 filed a complaint and the same is registered as Crime No.359 of 2022 before the Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad and the police after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet in C.C.No.9139 of 2022 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety and prima facie do not constitute any offence to make out a case against them and the prosecution was initiated on the basis of the complaint given by the respondent No.2, which was malafide and maliciously intended. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent/complainant gave a complaint to the Police on 02.05.2022 and 2nd respondent's daughter/wife of accused 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 No.1 has already gave a complaint against accused No.1 in USA on 22.01.2022, alleging the same allegations and the said complaint was thoroughly enquired into by the jurisdictional Court i.e., District Court of Maryland for Montgomery, USA and dismissed the same on 10.06.2022. That apart, the victim also gave a complaint to the National Commission for Women, NRI cell against accused No.1. He further submitted that these facts clearly establish that present complaint is not a bonafide and is intended to wreak vengeance against accused No.1 and his family members and the allegations against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1 are absolutely vague, sweeping, omnibus and bereft of particulars. He also submitted that accused No.1 has already filed divorce petition seeking divorce and custody of both the children in Circuit Court form Montgomery, Maryland in USA on 20.04.2022 and victim is contesting the same by filing a counter and the same is pending for the disposal and as a counter blast to the divorce petition, the present complaint is filed.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and another 1, wherein it was held that the family members of the husband should not be implicated in offence under Section 498-A on the basis of wild, vague and baseless allegations. He further submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and there are no specific allegations against them. He further submits that a copy of judgment passed by the Circuit Court for Montgomery Country, Maryland in USA and also a copy of Consent Custody and Child Support Order was filed. He further submitted that the Court in USA has granted divorce to the accused No.1 and victim on 03.10.2023 and by this order, the parties attended alternative dispute resolution and reached full and final settlement of the remaining issues with their divorce, but not including the respective custody of the matrimonial property, support and Child Support Order memorialized by the parties in the terms sheet and the 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 limitations pending stipulations with regard to child custody. Therefore, the complaint given against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is nothing but process of abuse of law. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the magnitude of the cruelty and inhuman behaviour of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 can be assessed by the fact that they suppressed the health conditions of accused No.1 and got him married to the 2nd respondent's daughter. Even 7 years prior to the marriage of the accused No.1, at the age of 23 years, he was hospitalized with neurological problem, hypertension, and cardiac problems. He further submitted that from 2005 onwards accused No.1 was treated in Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences and CARE hospital and even though the behaviour of accused No.1 and the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 was abnormal and different it was not known to the 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 victim. Even prior to the marriage, accused No.1 had serious health problems and they have successfully hidden the same. The documents filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 itself shows that what kind of cruelty was shown to the victim. This act of the accused No.1 and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 was ultimate example of cruelty, which not only creates troubles and traumatic conditions to the victim, but also endangers the health conditions of the two girls. He further submitted that the rampant cruelty among the accused No.1 and petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 was manifested through the fact that the accused No.1 refused to share his documents with the victim in order to extend her H4 status in the USA. Accused No.1 with the support of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 has hatched a cruel plan to throw the victim out of status and deport her to India. Being equally qualified, the victim stood up for her children and obtained a valid H1B visa to continue to live with her children in USA. He further submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the merits or otherwise of the 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 same has to be gone into by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. As per the averments made in the complaint, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed the 2nd respondent's daughter for want of additional dowry. Further allegation is that in the year 2012 and 2014, A1 along with A2 and A3 came to the house of respondent No.2 and demanded share in the property. Further in the year 2019, when they went to USA harassed victim woman, where as record shows that couple lived together till 2022. The main allegations are against husband i.e., A1 only and these petitioners are not resided with A1 and his wife. It is pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there are no specific allegations against them and they are no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent's daughter. Admittedly, the only allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is that they supported accused No.1.
9
SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023
8. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 2,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 2 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 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 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."
9. Further, in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 3, the Apex Court 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/accused Nos.2 and 3 are not residing along with the 2nd respondent's daughter, the allegations made against them are vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.1 as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (2 Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered 3 (2010) 7 SCC 667 11 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2560 of 2023 view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.9139 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: 20.11.2024
Gv