B. Raj Kumari vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2120 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.3920 OF 2021
ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the said C.C. The

offences alleged against her are under Section - 498A of IPC and

Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1 - State, and Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

4. CASE OF PROSECUTION:

As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner

herein are as follows:

i) the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was

performed on 06.02.2011;

ii) at the time of marriage, on the demand of petitioner and

accused No.1, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash

of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry, 50 tulas of gold; and KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

Rs.1.00 lakh for purchase of Hunk Motorcycle; and also

10 tulas of gold towards Adapaduchu Katnam;

iii) the parents of respondent No.2 performed their marriage

by spending Rs.20.00 lakhs;

iv) respondent No.2 has joined the company of accused

No.1, where the petitioner herein also resides along with

them at East Pragathi Nagar, Moulali, Hyderabad, and

lived there happily for a few days;

v) later, accused No.1 used to come to the house in drunken

condition and harassing respondent No.2, both mentally

and physically by abusing her;

vi) they have blessed with a female baby;

vii) thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them as

accused Nos.1 and 2 started demanding to get Rs.1.00

lakh towards additional dowry, otherwise leave the

house;

viii) after her marriage, her father used to give Rs.5000/- per

month to her and the same would be taken by accused

No.1;

ix) while she was doing job, accused No.1 suspected her

character, she left the job;

x) after that, accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing

respondent No.2 for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs;

xi) accused No.1 used to say with respondent No.2 that he

has cancelled three engagements on the pretext that he KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

would get more dowry and started harassing her

demanding additional dowry;

xii) the petitioner herein used to encourage accused No.1 to

obtain divorce from respondent No.2, so that he would

get dowry;

5. With the above allegations, respondent No.2 has lodged a

complaint with Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, who in turn

registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences

against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein.

6. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge

sheet against the petitioner herein and accused No.1 for the aforesaid

offences.

7. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

i) Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that respondent No.2 is suffering with 'epilepsy' and the said

fact was suppressed by her parents at the time of marriage.

ii) Accused No.1 came to know about the same when

respondent No.2 became unconscious thrice. Therefore, accused No.1

has filed a divorce petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 which was

dismissed for default by striking out the defence of accused No.1.

iii) There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and

also improvements. There are no allegations, much less specific

allegations against the petitioner - accused No.2. In fact, respondent KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

No.2 has beat the petitioner herein and accused No.1, who in turn

received bleeding injuries. In proof of the same, he has filed

photographs.

iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P.2.

v) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

herein.

8. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:

i) Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 would submit that the present Calendar Case is of the year 2017,

whereas the petitioner herein has filed the present petition in the year

2021. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein also.

ii) He would further submit that the police have filed charge

sheet on consideration of statements of witnesses and also the

evidence collected. In fact, there are contradictions in the versions of

petitioner herein in the criminal petition itself. He has referred to

paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the criminal petition. There are triable

issues. The petitioner herein instead of facing trial, proving her

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

. (2019) 15 SCC 357 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

innocence, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.

No.187 of 2017 after elapse of four years.

iii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the present petition.

9. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there

are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Both the

petitioner and accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2, both

mentally and physically. There are triable issues. The petitioner has

to face trial and prove her innocence. The defence taken by the

petitioner may not be considered in the present petition filed under

Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has to take such defence

during trial before the trial Court.

ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.

10. FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) A perusal of the material would reveal that the marriage of

accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 06.02.2011,

and it is an arranged marriage. They blessed with a female baby, by

name Harika. She was aged 2 years as on 27.02.2017. Accused No.1

has filed a petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 seeking dissolution of

marriage and the same was dismissed by striking off his defence.

KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

Thus, accused No.1 has filed the above divorce petition after lapse of

five years of his marriage.

ii) A perusal of the statement of respondent No.2, complaint

dated 27.02.2017 and the charge sheet would reveal that, prima facie,

there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. According

to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a widow and was an employee

of NFC and also she used to stay with accused No.1 and respondent

No.2. There is specific mention about the cash, jewellery and

motorcycle etc. given by the parents of respondent No.2 towards

dowry. There is specific allegation about demand of additional

dowry. There is also specific allegation that the petitioner herein and

accused No.1 used to harass her, both mentally and physically and

also abusing her in filthy language. Her father used to give Rs.5,000/-

per month which accused No.1 used to take from her. There is also a

specific allegation that accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2

by demanding an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards additional dowry.

iii) In the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C,

respondent No.2 has specifically stated that petitioner - accused No.2

and her son harassed saying that accused No.2 will take divorce from

her as she is suffering from thyroid. Accused No.1 maintained illicit

relation with tenant and harassing her. Respondent No.2 worked in

Omega Degree College for about three years and during the said

period, the petitioner and accused No.1 used to take care of her. But,

after some time, accused No.1 suspected her character and, therefore, KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

she stopped the said job. There is also a specific allegation that the

petitioner herein and accused No.2 neglected the daughter of

respondent No.2 while she was ill and her parents used to bear the

hospital expenses. There is also a specific allegation against the

petitioner - accused No.2 herein that she has harassed respondent No.2

saying that they are providing roti, kapada and makhan and that

respondent No.2 has to stay in the house as a dog and saying so, she

used to abuse respondent No.2 in filthy language. Thus, prima facie,

there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The

defence taken by the petitioner that there are contradictions and

improvement in the statements recorded under Section - 161 of

Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the trial Court during trial, but not at this

stage.

iv) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

there are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the

petitioner herein is unsustainable in view of the aforesaid discussion.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is

suffering with 'epilepsy' and the said fact was suppressed by

respondent No.2 and her parents at the time of marriage. But, a

perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of accused No.1

was performed with respondent No.2 on 06.02.2011, they balessed

with a baby and the divorce application filed after five years of the

marriage was dismissed. Therefore, the said contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is not probable, and believable at this stage.

KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

However, it is triable issue. The petitioner has to take the said defence

during trial. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

respondent No.2 beat the petitioner and accused No.1, but he has not

filed any document to show that the petitioner herein and accused

No.1 have lodged complaint against respondent No.2 and the same is

not borne out by record. Therefore, according to this Court, the

petitioner herein has to take the said defence during the course of trial

in the C.C.

v) Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that

the petitioner worked in NFC and retired from service. IN view of the

pendency of the present case, her Employer is not releasing her retrial

benefits. But, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings at

this stage.

vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi

Chopra2.

vii) The Apex Court in several judgments examined the scope

and ambit of powers of High Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. In

Bhajan Lal1 the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should

be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the

rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which

is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the

complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of

Cr.P.C., which are as under:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

viii) In Rashmi Chopra2, the Apex Court after referring to the

principle held by it in various other judgments including Bhajan Lal1,

and Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 held that the criminal

prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie

offence is disclosed. The judicial process is a solemn proceeding

which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of

oppression or harassing. If the High Court finds that the proceedings

deserve to be quashed as per the parameters as laid down by the

Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal1, the High Court shall not hesitate, in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings.

ix) According to this Court, in view of the above said

discussion that there are specific allegations against the petitioner

herein and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to quash

the proceedings, the aforesaid decisions are not helpful to the case of

petitioner.

x) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State

of Maharashtra4 has categorically held that quashing criminal

proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not

disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If

allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which

cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court

. (2017) 13 SCC 369

. AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case

should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in

conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and

consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on

oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be

no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be

available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might

lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at

threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether

averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or

not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima

facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or

otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial

stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle

proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf

of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on

ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If

ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made

out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

xi) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh5, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

. AIR 2021 SC 931 KL,J Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

11. CONCLUSION:

i) In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of law and

the discussion made, prima facie, there are specific allegations against

the petitioner herein and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017. The

petitioner failed to make out any ground to quash the proceedings in

the said C.C. by this Court exercising its inherent power under Section

- 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the petition is devoid of merits and same is

liable to be dismissed.

ii) The present Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 16th July, 2021 Mgr