Doppalapudi Chitti Babu And ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1158 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                      CRL.P. No.12254 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, in C.C.No.451

of 2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C.

The facts which led to filing of this Criminal Petition are as

under:

The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against

the petitioners and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said case was taken on file as

C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The allegations in

the private complaint are that the marriage of the 2nd respondent

with accused No.1 was solemnized on 30.10.2014 and at the time of

marriage, on the demand made by A-1 to A-3, the parents of the 2nd

respondent gave gold ornaments, cash and other valuable gifts to

them. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started making huge demands and

asked the parents of the 2nd respondent to give gifts to nearly 500

people from their side and the 2nd petitioner/A3 told that the 2nd

respondent would be harassed if dowry is not given as demanded

by them. Subsequently, A-1 left for U.S.A. alone and on 20.12.2014,

the 2nd respondent left India and joined A-1 in U.S.A, where A-1

started harassing the 2nd respondent for want of additional dowry

and that the behaviour of A-1 towards the 2nd respondent was

inhuman. It is further stated that out of their wedlock, they were

blessed with a male child on 15.09.2015. It is further stated that A-1

has tortured the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically.

None appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Hence, heard

Sri P.Shashi Kiram, learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent/State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

incidents alleged to have been made by the 2nd respondent are said

to have been taken place at U.S.A. and that there are no specific

overt acts against the petitioners and the allegations leveled against

them are general in nature. He further submits that the petitioners

being the relatives of A-1 and in order to put pressure on A-1, the

petitioners were roped into this case. He also submits that as seen

from the complaint, the 2nd respondent seems to have returned to

India on 05.01.2016 and if the allegations were true, nothing could

have prevented her from filing the case immediately and need not to

have waited till 01.05.2017. He further submits that the 2nd

respondent had intentionally suppressed the fact of filing

O.P.No.290 of 2016 by her against A-1 seeking divorce. He also

submits that since the allegations against the petitioners are general

in nature, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed and

prayed to allow the Criminal Petition. In support of his contentions

he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra

and another v. State of U.P. and another1 and Preeti Gupta and

another v. State of Jharkhand and another2.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent/State opposed the Criminal Petition.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful

to refer to the allegations made in the present complaint and also the

judgments of the Apex Court in this regard.

In NEELU CHOPRA AND ANOTHER V. BHARTI3, the Apex

Court was dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the

respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under

Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 114 of IPC. The Apex

Court held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention

of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and

end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the

court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every

accused and the role played by each and every accused in

committing of that offence. The Apex Court found that the

allegations in the said complaint were vague, as it does not show as

(2012) 10 SCC 741

(2010) 7 SCC 667

2009(4) JCC 3021

to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact

role played by them in the commission of crime. Under these

circumstances, the Apex Court found that continuation of

proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of

law.

In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (1 supra), the Apex Court

held that mere casual references of the names of the family members

in a matrimonial dispute without any allegation of active

involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance

against them in view of overlooking facts borne out of experience

that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the

household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial

dispute. The Apex Court also observed that if the FIR as it stands

does not disclose specific allegation against the accused, especially

in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear

abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the

named accused in FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR

discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to

take cognizance of the case against the relatives of the main accused

who are prima facie not found to have indulged in the torture of the

complainant.

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2 supra), the Apex

Court pointed out that in cases of this nature, allegations in the

complaint should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection

especially against the husband's relatives who are living in different

cities, who never visit or rarely visit the matrimonial house of the

complainant. The Supreme Court reminded the member of the Bar

and Bench of their social responsibility and obligation to ensure that

social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.

From the judgments referred to above, it is clear that

continuation of proceedings against the accused would be improper

where the allegations made against the accused are vague and

omnibus in nature.

In the instant case, as seen from the material available on

record, the marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place on

30.10.2014 and she joined with A-1 at U.S.A on 20.12.2014 and they

were blessed with a male child on 15.09.2015. The record also

discloses that all the allegations were made against A-1, which are

said to have been taken place at U.S.A. The record further discloses

that O.P.No.290 of 2016 filed by the 2nd respondent against A-1

seeking divorce has already been allowed on 23.02.2018 and against

which A-1 filed F.C.A.No.396 of 2018 before this Court, which is

pending.

Further, from a perusal of the private complaint, I find that

there are no allegations against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 that

they have harassed the 2nd respondent and that there is general and

omnibus allegation that whenever the petitioners used to call A-1,

A-1 used to step-up harassment and violence on the 2nd respondent.

Except that no overt act of ill-treatment or cruelty is alleged against

the petitioners/A2 and A3.

Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court

in the cases referred to above and for the aforementioned reasons,

this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the

petitioners would be an abuse of process of law and the same are

liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.No.451 of

2017 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

___________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

09.04.2021 Gsn/gkv