Sri K. Venkatanna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4438 Tel

                                   1




        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                Criminal Petition No.9010 of 2013

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.

No.125 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar for the offence

under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition

Act (for short 'DP Act') taken on file against them.

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

before the Police on 31.10.2012 at 12:30 hours alleging that she

was married with A-1 on 28.05.2009 as per Hindu rites and

customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/-

cash, two tulas of gold and one Hero Honda Motor Cycle worth

Rs.70,000/- to A-1. After the marriage, she came to know that her

husband was a divorcee. When she questioned him, he admitted

the same and threatened her. After the marriage, A-1 to A-5

harassed her, demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. She

informed her parents and they tried to convince the A-1 to A-5 but

they did not change their attitude and harassed her for additional

dowry. Based on the said report, police registered a case in Crime

No.60 of 2012 under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 and 6

of DP Act and after investigation, filed charge sheet against A-1 to

A-5 for the above offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner No.1/A-2 was the brother of A-1. The petitioner No.2/A-

3 was the wife of A-2, sister-in-law of A-1. The first petitioner was

working at Karimnagar since 2010. Prior to that, he was working

in Visakhapatnam from 2007 to 2010. He was staying at

Visakhapatnam and Karimnagar with his wife, 2nd petitioner

herein. Neither the petitioners stayed with R-2 nor R-2 never

stayed with them either at Visakhapatnam or Karimnagar. The

allegations contained in the charge sheet were mainly against A-1.

The allegation of demand of additional dowry was against A-1 only.

Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a

matrimonial dispute without allegations of active involvement,

would not justify continuation of criminal case against them, over-

looking the fact that there was a tendency to involve the entire

family members in domestic quarrels that took place between the

couples, the fact that A-1 was a divorcee was clearly known to R-2

even before the marriage, and prayed to allow the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the case was split up against A-2 and A3 and tried against A-

1, A-4 and A-5 vide C.C. No.117 of 2017 and the same was

acquitted against them on 06.12.2019. The complainant testified

in her cross examination that she had settled the dispute with A-1

to A-5 out of the Court on intervention of elders and that she did

not wish to prosecute the case against the accused and received

Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement in the course of discussion

in the Panchayat before the elders. P.W.2, father of the P.W.1, also

stated that they had settled the dispute with the accused for

Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement and received the said

amount. Considering the same and as the essential ingredients

constituting the charge for which the accused were tried were not

brought on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the

petition on merits.

6. Perused the material placed on record.

7. Considering that the complaint as well as the charge

sheet would not disclose any specific allegations made by the

complainant against the petitioners herein and considering the

judgment of the trial Court in C.C. No.117 of 2017 which would

disclose that the complainant and her father admitted about the

settlement of the matter before the Panchayat elders outside the

Court and that they received an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards

full and final settlement and were not interested to proceed with

the matter against the accused persons and as the case against the

main accused, A-1, itself ended in acquittal, the continuation of

the proceedings against the petitioners is considered as an abuse

of process of law and as such fit to be quashed against them.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C. No.125 of

2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar, for the offence under Section

498-A IPC and Section 4 and 6 of D.P. Act taken on file against

them.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI Date: 17.12.2021 LSK