Telangana High Court
Smt J.Aruna Kumari vs K.Madhavi Another on 13 December, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13323 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.937 of 2010 on the file
of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') taken on file against
her.
2. The 1st respondent filed complaint before the XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that her marriage
was performed with A1 on 11.12.1994 at Palvancha, Khammam
District and after marriage, she joined the company of A1 and lived
happily for one month and at the time of marriage, her parents gave
Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 25 tulas of gold, 40 tulas of silver and
household articles including furniture and performed marriage in a
grand manner. Since 1996, A1 ill-treated her and harassed her
physically and mentally and out of the wedlock, she was blessed with
two children i.e. one male and one female. She was working as a
teacher in Government School, Bibinagar. A1 worked as a cashier in
SBH, STC Branch, Secunderabad. A1 used to come late in the night
in drunken condition and beat her black and blue and also used to
beat the children. A1 also used to pick up quarrel with her at the
instigation of A2 and abuse her and also pass sneering remarks over
her. A1 and A2 used to harass her by saying that she was not
suitable to them and she had not brought sufficient dowry as per
their desires. In the month of October, 2008, the accused demanded
her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, beaten her
Dr.GRR,J
mercilessly and necked her from the marital house along with
minors on wearing apparel. She went to her parents' house and her
parents arranged an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs by availing loan from
relatives and friends and paid the same on 31.10.2009. A1 promised
to look after her and the children well, but after few months, he
again started demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs
from her parents. A1 again threw her out from the house along with
children on 05.02.2010 and threatened to kill her and children if she
failed to fulfil his demands. She took a house on rent and was
residing with her children, but the accused came there on
22.02.2010 and created nuisance, bet her and threatened to kill her.
On her hue and cry people gathered there and she escaped from the
hands of the accused. The said complaint was referred to the
Woman Police Station, CCS and the same was registered as Crime
No.341 of 2010 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
DP Act and after completing investigation, the police filed charge
sheet against A1 and A2 for the above offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
investigating officer had not properly enquired/investigated in detail
and filed charge sheet mechanically basing on the statements of the
complainant and her parents. The entire statements of the
witnesses would not disclose the ingredients of the Sections
mentioned in the complaint against the petitioner. The complainant
stated in her statement that she was separated from her in-laws and
shifted to Sathupalli as her husband was transferred to Sathupalli
and they stayed there for 4 to 5 years. She also further stated that
Dr.GRR,J
in the year 1998, she got job as Government Teacher at Kodada and
they shifted to Kodada. Kodada was the place of complainant's
parents. After getting the job in the year 1998 she lived with her
parents for 10 years. In fact, the place of job of A1 was away from
Kodada. But for her convenience, he shifted to Kodada. A2 was
living separately since they shifted their family to Sathupalli. He
further submitted that the petitioner was suffering with brain cancer
and she underwent operation and treatment and that she was not in
a position to bear any mental or physical harassment from any one.
5. He further submitted that as interim stay of all further
proceedings was granted by this Court on 13.11.2013, the case was
split up against the petitioner/A2 and was tried against A1 and
ended in acquittal on 18.01.2018 and filed a copy of the said
judgment in C.C.No.937 of 2010.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition
on merits.
7. Perused the record. On perusal of the judgment in
C.C.No.937 of 2010,dated 18.01.2018 tried against A.1, it was
mentioned that the complainant/victim was not examined by the
prosecution and a report was filed by the police stating that her
whereabouts were not known, as such the evidence of LWs.1 to 3
was closed and LW.4 expired and only IO was examined as PW.1. As
the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as there was
no other evidence other than the IO, acquitted A1 for the offences
under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
8. The statement of complainant recorded by the police on
10.06.2010 would disclose that after her marriage with A1, after two
Dr.GRR,J
years, they separated from their in-laws and shifted to Sathupalli
because her husband was transferred to Sathupalli Branch and
stayed there for four to five years. In the year 1998, she got a
Government Job as Teacher at Kodada and then they shifted to
Kodada. Thus, most of her marital life, she stayed in a separate
family, away from her in-laws due to the job of A1 or due to her
securing a job in the year 1998, within four years of her marriage.
Even in the month of January, 2010 when her mother-in-law came
to her house, she immediately shifted the house and took another
house on rent and lived there along with her children separately.
Thus, the statement of the complainant as LW.1 and the statements
of her parents as LWs.2 and 3 also would not disclose that the
complainant had stayed with her mother-in-law all through her
marital life. The case against main accused i.e. A.1 itself ended in
acquittal, as the complainant failed to give evidence against him.
The continuation of prosecution against the petitioner/A2 is a futile
exercise and no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to
continue the same. As such the petition is liable to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in C.C. No.937 of 2010 on the
file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,
which was split up from C.C.No.937 of 2010 and numbered as
C.C.No.651 of 2017.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
Dated:13.12.2021.
kvrm
