Smt. Rapolu Dasari Kavitha vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 705 Tel

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4559 AND 4499 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER:

       Crl.P. No.4559 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.62 of 2019 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar. Criminal Petition

No.4499 of 2019 is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7. The offences

alleged against the petitioners - accused Nos.4 to 6 are under Section -

498A of IPC and Section - 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Accused No.4 and 6 are sisters of accused No.1, husband of

respondent No.2 herein, and accused Nos.5 and 7 are their husbands.

2. Heard Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de

facto complainant, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

3. As per the complaint, dated 13.07.2018, the allegations

against the petitioners herein are as follows:

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

performed on 24.12.2016 at Dasari Gardens, Karimnagar;

ii. the parents of respondent No.2 have given dowry, the details of

which are mentioned in the complaint;

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

iii. respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived happily for three (03)

months;

iv. thereafter, the parents and sisters of accused No.1 have started

harassing respondent No.2, both physically and mentally,

demanding additional dowry;

v. accused No.1 abused and assaulted her; and

vi. the petitioners herein have also supported accused No.1, and all

of them harassed her demanding additional dowry and, thus,

they have subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty, both physically

and mentally.

4. Based on the said complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the

Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Karimnagar, had

registered a case in Crime No.161 of 2018 against the petitioners

herein and others for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC and

Section - 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. After completion of investigation, the police have filed final

report and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same vide

C.C. No.62 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences.

6. Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, would submit that the marriage of accused No.1 with

respondent No.2 was performed on 24.12.2016. The petitioners -

accused Nos.6 and 7, residents of USA, came to India only to attend

the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2. They left USA KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

on 21.07.2017. There is no allegation, much less specific allegation

against them and there are general allegations that they have supported

accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry. Except that, there is no

other allegation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 are residents of Hyderabad, and their

marriage was performed long back and they are nothing to do with

matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and respondent No.2.

Accused No.4 is working in Kasturba Gandhi Degree and PG College

for Women, while her husband, accused No.5, is a Software

Professional. There are no allegations, much less specific allegation

against them.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that

none of the witnesses examined by the police spoke about the alleged

harassment of respondent No.2 by the petitioners. The Investigating

Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of

Cr.P.C. Even in the chare sheet also, there is no mention that the

Investigating Officer tried to serve notice under Section - 41A of

Cr.P.C on the petitioners herein. Even then, without following the

said procedure, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet

against the petitioners and cognizance was taken by the learned

Magistrate in the aforesaid C.C. for the said offences. The learned

counsel would further submit that the contents of the charge sheet

lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners and, KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

therefore, requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in

the aforesaid C.C.

9. Mr. V.Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would

submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein.

Their names are also specifically mentioned in the complaint.

According to him, accused Nos.6 and 7 have stayed in India for about

seven (07) months. There are several triable issues to be elicited

during the course of trial, and the petitioners herein instead of facing

trial, filed the present petitions to quash the proceedings in the

aforesaid C.C. According to him, the entire conversation was

recorded in Compact Disk (CD), and the same would be produced

before the Court below. With the said contentions, he sought to

dismiss the present criminal petitions.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

would submit that there are specific allegations against the accused,

including the petitioners herein and they have alternative remedy of

filing an application before the Court below for their discharge.

Instead of availing the same, the petitioners filed the present petitions.

11. The above said facts would reveal that there is no dispute

that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was

performed on 24.12.2016. It is an arranged marriage. Even according

to respondent No.2, they lived happily for a period of three (03)

months and, thereafter, the accused have started harassing her, both KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

physically and mentally. A perusal of the complaint dated

13.07.2018, statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of

Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet would reveal that there are no specific

allegations against the petitioners herein. All the allegations leveled

against them are general in nature. Accused No.4 is married sister of

accused No.1 and accused No.5 is her husband, a Software

Professional. Accused No.4 is working in the aforesaid College.

Their marriage was performed on 19.05.2005. They are staying in

Hyderabad. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations

against them. Similarly, accused No.6 is also married sister of

accused No.1 and accused No.7 is her husband. Both are staying in

USA. They came to India to attend the marriage of accused No.1 with

respondent No.2 and, thereafter, they never visited India after July,

2017. In proof of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners has

filed Photostat copies of Passports.

12. It is also relevant to note that during the course of

investigation, the police have not recorded statements of witnesses to

show that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.

Even the witnesses whose statements were recorded did not speak

about the harassment that meted out by the petitioners towards

respondent No.2. There is no date or time as to when they have

demanded or harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry etc.

Except stating that respondent No.2 would produce call recording

statement and the contents of CD etc., she has not produced the same.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

The Investigating Officer also did not collect such evidence during the

course of his investigation. He did not collect the call data to show

that accused Nos.6 and 7, residents of USA and accused Nos.4 and 5,

residents of Hyderabad, have supported accused No.1 in demanding

additional dowry and harassed respondent No.2. In view o the same,

it is clear that there is no evidence with regard to the role played by

the petitioners in the commission of offences alleged against them.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1

categorically held that in the absence of specific allegation with regard

to the role played by accused including married sisters, the

proceedings for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC are not

maintainable and are liable to be quashed. The Apex Court in a catena

of judgments categorically held that High Court has inherent power to

act ex debito justiciae to do real and substantial justice, for the

administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of

process of Court. Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be

exercised; (a) to give effect to any order under the Code; (b) to

prevent abuse of process of Courts; and (c) to otherwise secure the

ends of justice.

13. As discussed supra, in the present case, there are no

allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners -

accused Nos.4 to 7. Thus, viewed from any angle, the proceedings in

the aforesaid CC cannot be continued for trial against the petitioners.

. (2010) 7 SCC 667 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.4559 & 4499 of 2019

14. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petitions are allowed,

and the proceedings in C.C. No.62 of 2019 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar, are hereby quashed

against the petitioners herein, accused Nos.4 to 7 only.

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

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 5th March, 2021 Mgr