Smt.Dhuarpata 8 Others vs The State Of A.P. Through Sho., Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3810 Tel

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.8340 of 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners - A3 to A11 under

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

No.33 of 2012 on the file of Women Police Station, City Central

Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section

498-A, 406 IPC and 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short

'DP Act').

2. The respondent No.2 lodged a report with the concerned

Police on 11.01.2012 stating that her marriage was performed with A1

on 12.06.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs at Karnataka, her

parents arranged dowry of Rs.25,000/- and household articles worth

Rs.1,50,000/-. One year after the marriage, her husband, her in-laws,

sisters-in-law and relatives of her husband started harassing her for

petty issues. They demanded additional dowry of Rs.70,000/- and bet

her. Her family paid the said amount of Rs.70,000/- but her husband

stated that he had not received the amount and again started

demanding for Rs.1,00,000/- and 4 tulas of gold. He was having an

affair with another woman and staying with her.

3. The respondent No.2 made several allegations against A1

that he cut her hair, bet with iron rods at the instigation of his mother

and sisters. She stated the names of petitioners No.1, 2, 6 and 7 that

they detained her daughter to stop her to go to Police Station for Dr.GRR,J

lodging the complaint and threatened to kill her and her daughter and

her family, if she lodged any complaint against them. She also made

several allegations that her husband and mother-in-law kicked her and

her in-laws abetted to kill her and they all held her hair and bet her on

her back and all the relatives tried to kill her, she escaped from their

clutches and with the help of her neighbours went to her parents'

house. She named the persons, who harassed her, in her complaint.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the de facto complainant-respondent No.2 and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

contents of the complaint would not disclose any specific allegations

against each of the petitioners much less any role in the commission

of the alleged offences. The petitioners have been living separately;

they had nothing to do with the family affairs of the respondent No.2.

The contents of the complaint even if taken on their face value, did

not constitute any offences as alleged against the petitioners herein

and hence, proceeding with the criminal case against the petitioners

was an abuse of process of law. The proceedings were initiated

maliciously with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the

petitioners herein and prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand,

submitted that there were specific allegations against all the accused Dr.GRR,J

in the complaint made by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on

merits.

8. Perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners

relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preethi

Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another1, wherein it

was held:

"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 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."

2010 (7) SCC 667 Dr.GRR,J

9. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another2 wherein it was held that:

"Where large number of family members had been included in FIR by casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Under such conditions, cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process. Quashment of such proceedings would be justified."

10. As the complaint would disclose specific allegations made

by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners 1, 2, 6 and 7, who are

A3, A4, A8 and A9, it is considered not fit to quash the petition

against them. However, as there are no specific allegations made

against the petitioners 3 to 5, 8 and 9 i.e. A5 to A7, A10 and A11, and

the petitioner No.9 i.e. A11 is stated to be a girl friend but, is not a

relative of A1, and no specific allegations were made against them

except giving their names in the complaint, it is considered fit to

quash the proceedings against them.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part,

quashing the proceedings against the petitioners No.3 to 5, 8 and 9 -

Accused Nos.5 to 7, 10 and 11 and the Criminal Petition is dismissed

against the petitioners No.1, 2, 6 and 7 - Accused Nos.3, 4, 8 and 9.

12. However, the presence of the petitioners 1, 2, 6 and 7 -

Accused Nos.3, 4, 8 and 9 is dispensed with before the trial Court on

each and every adjournment and they shall appear before the trial

2012 (10) SCC 741 Dr.GRR,J

Court as and when their presence is required, as they belong to the

State of Maharashtra.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 29, 2021 KTL