Telangana High Court

Kanuganti Hanumantha Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 December, 2021

Bench: G.Radha Rani

            THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.9519 of 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners - A1 to A4 under

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

C.C.No.230 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhongir, for the offences punishable under Section

498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

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

before the police on 19.06.2012 at 12.30 hours stating that her

marriage was solemnised with the 1st petitioner on 06.03.2011 at

Nagole and they presented dowry of Rs.20 lakhs, 2 kgs silver, 20

tulas of gold and net cash of Rs.5 lakhs towards expenditure at the

time of marriage. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner led conjugal

life with the 2nd respondent only for 15 days, later he left her at her

in-laws' house and left to UK stating that he would take her to UK

under family VISA. Later the 1st petitioner demanded her over

phone to bring additional dowry of Rs.30 lakhs. The father-in-law,

mother-in-law and younger brother-in-law harassed her for

additional dowry, but she bore their harassment patiently. A year

ago, they took her to the upstairs of the building and tried to kill

her by throwing from the building, but she managed to escape

from them and returned to her parents' home at Bhongir. Recently

her mother talked to her-in-laws over phone, on coming to know

about her husband visiting India, but they abused her mother.

Basing on the report lodged by the 2nd respondent, the police

registered a case in Crime No.146 of 2012 under Section 498-A IPC Dr.GRR,J

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after

investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A.4 for the above

offences with a prayer to issue NBW against A1 as and when he

visited India from London.

3. The 1st petitioner/A1 is represented by his father, who is

the 2nd petitioner/A2 through GPA.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for

the 2nd respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

allegations in the charge sheet would not constitute any offence

against the petitioners either under Section 498-A IPC or for the

offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As

per the admitted case of the 2nd respondent, after 15 days of her

marriage, the 1st petitioner left to UK and since March, 2011 she

resided with her parents and she never resided with the other

petitioners. In such a case, it could not be said that the petitioners

2 to 4 had committed the alleged offences. The 4th petitioner was a

software engineer in HP Company in Bangalore. Except on the day

of the marriage, he never had an occasion to come to Bhongir.

Only with an intention to harass him, his name was implicated.

The allegations even if they were taken into consideration, would

not lead to conviction of the petitioners, as such, continuation of

the criminal proceedings was nothing but an abuse of process of

the Court and prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners. He also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v State of U.P. and Dr.GRR,J

another1 and in Preeti Gupta and another2 and the decision of

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shaik Kaleemullah and others

v State of A.P.3.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the

charge sheet contained prima facie allegations against the

petitioners and prayed to allow the trial to be proceeded against

the petitioners.

7. Perused the record. The complaint as well as the 161

Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses would disclose prima facie

allegations against the petitioners for the offence under Section

498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

2nd respondent/complainant contended that the petitioners

demanded additional dowry of Rs.30 lakhs, apart from receiving

Rs.20 lakhs of dowry at the time of marriage. She also made

allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 alleging that they attempted

to kill her by throwing from the building. Thus, there were specific

allegations made by the 2nd respondent in her complaint as well as

in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The statements of other witnesses

recorded by the police also would disclose a prima facie case

against the petitioners. The police filed charge sheet against the

petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the allegations could be

decided only after full-fledged trial.

8. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geetha Mehrotra (1st

supra) it was held that:

2012 Law Suit (SC) 716

2010 Law Suit (SC) 543

2010 Law Suit (AP) 848 Dr.GRR,J

"24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially 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 the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law.

Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

9. The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner cannot be mechanically applied to all the cases and they

depend upon the facts of each case. As the charge sheet would

disclose prima facie allegations against the petitioners, it is

considered not fit to allow the petition. However, as petitioners 2

and 3 are old aged persons and petitioner No.4 is stated to be

working in Bangalore, their presence is dispensed with and they

are permitted to mark their appearance through their counsel

except on the dates when their presence is required by the Court

below.

Dr.GRR,J

10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.