Telangana High Court

Veeramalla Vengalaiah 2 Others vs State Of Ap., Another on 13 December, 2021

Bench: G.Radha Rani

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.7681 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - A2 to A4

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in

CC No.226 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mahabubabad, Warangal District for the offences under Section

498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short

'DP Act').

2. The 2nd respondent - de facto complainant lodged a report

before the police on 07.12.2012 at 3.00 PM stating that she was

married with A1 on 22.03.2006 at Mahabubabad. At the time of

marriage, on the demand of her husband and in-laws, her parents gave

Rs.5,00,000/- net cash, 10 tulas of gold and household articles as

dowry. During the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter, by

name, Krishna Teja, who was aged 5years. Two years after the birth

of her daughter, her husband, in-laws and sister-in-law started

quarrelling with her and started harassing her physically and mentally

demanding land, but the same was already sold and given net cash to

them. She informed her parents about the harassment made by her

husband and in-laws. A panchayat was also held at Khammam. Her

husband promised to look after her well in the Panchayat. They took

a room on rent at Khammam and lived there separately. Her husband

did not change his attitude and again started harassing her. He had not

even provided food to her for want of additional dowry amount. So, Dr.GRR,J

she came to her parents' house at Mahabubabad. For the last four

months she was working at Hyderabad but, her husband was making

phone calls and harassing her alleging that she had illegal intimacy

with others. For the last five days, her husband, in-laws and sister-in-

law were making phone calls and demanding her for additional dowry

amount. Basing on the said report, the Mahabubabad Town Police

registered a case vide Crime No.242 of 2012 for the offences under

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act and on

completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for

the above offences. The case was taken on file by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad for the above offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners - A2 to A4 and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A1 was a

Software Engineer and resided at Hyderabad along with the

2nd respondent - de facto complainant at Gandhinagar, Kawadiguda.

The 1st petitioner-A2 was a retired Circle Inspector of Police. He was

no way concerned with the alleged offences. A3 was a housewife.

Both of them were patients and were suffering from various ailments

due to their old age. They were permanent residents of Khanapuram

village, Khammam Urban and were leading retired life. The 2nd

respondent and A1 had not resided with them at any point of time. A4

was the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. She was an unmarried girl,

living with her parents. She did her Post Graduation in M.Sc., and

was preparing for Civil Services Examination. All the petitioners Dr.GRR,J

were no way concerned with the alleged offences. A1 had filed a

divorce petition against the 2nd respondent vide OP No.97 of 2012

under Section 13 (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 15.11.2012 on

the ground of cruelty. The 2nd respondent gave the report on

07.12.2012 as a counter blast, not only against A1, but also against the

petitioners to cover up her misdeeds. Learned counsel relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neelu Chopra and another

v. Bharti1 and Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand

and another2.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on

merits.

6. Perused the report given by the 2nd respondent to the police.

As per the said report, the harassment of her husband and in-laws was

stated to have started two years after the birth of her daughter and

after a panchayat was conducted, she lived with her husband at

Khammam in a separate family. As such, the allegations made

against the petitioners were three years prior to the date of her lodging

the complaint and as per the complaint also she started to do a job in

Hyderabad and was living separately even apart from her husband -

A1. Thus, what all the harassment stated by her was over phone for

the last five days prior to lodging the complaint. No specific

allegations were made against the petitioners except stating that they

were making phone calls and harassing her demanding additional

dowry.

2009 (10 SCC 184

2009 (7) SCC 667 Dr.GRR,J

7. On considering the date of issuing the notice by A1 to the

2nd respondent seeking divorce on 15.11.2012 and the date of filing

the complaint by the 2nd respondent on 07.12.2012, within a short

period after receipt of the notice issued by A1, it appears that the 2nd

respondent filed this complaint as a counter case to the divorce

petition filed by her husband including the petitioners herein.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Neelu Chopra case (1 supra)

held that:

"For lodging a proper complaint mere mentioning of relevant sections and language of those sections is not sufficient. Particulars of offence committed by each accused and the role played by them in committing that offence need to be stated. In the instant case, allegations related to dowry demand and misbehaviour against husband and parents-in- law. However, the complaint was vague as it did not show which accused had committed what offence and exact role played by the appellants in commission of offence. It would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of A1, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants"

and quashed the proceedings.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta case (2 supra) held

that:

"The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. Such allegations of the Dr.GRR,J

complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

A serious relook of Section 498-A is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy."

10. Hence, considering the above judgments and as no specific

allegations were made against the petitioners by the 2nd respondent in

the complaint and the 2nd respondent was not residing along with the

petitioners in the joint family for the past many years, it is considered

fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.226 of

2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad, Warangal District, as continuation of proceedings

against them is an abuse of process of law.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings in CC No. 226 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, against

the petitioners - A2 to A4.