D. Rama Devi, Krishna Dt 2 Others vs D. Hemasri, Hyd Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1794 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                        CRL.P.No.15954 OF 2013
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in

C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4, learned

counsel for the first respondent/complainant and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second respondent/State.

3. A private complaint was filed by the first respondent and the

same was referred to the police who, in turn, registered a case

against the petitioners herein and two others for the offences

punishable under Sections 494, 107 and 120-B IPC.

4. A-2 is the mother-in-law, A-3 is the brother-in-law and A-4

is the sister-in-law of the first respondent. A-1 is the husband of

the first respondent.

5. The first respondent alleged in the complaint that her

marriage with A-1 was performed on 22.02.2008 at Shiridi. At the

time of marriage, A-2 demanded dowry of Rs.40 lakhs,

400 gms gold, but the parents of first respondent agreed to

give Rs.30 lakhs and 400 gms gold. Subsequently, A-2 started

demanding for additional dowry. A-1 alone left for Newzealand on

15.03.2008. A-1 demanded Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry

from her. The first respondent gave a complaint before police and

the same was registered as Cr.No.683 of 2009 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 filed F.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 before

the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada seeking divorce, wherein an ex parte divorce

was granted in favour of A-1. Later, the first respondent filed an

application seeking to set aside the ex parte order and decree.

She also filed an application to condone the delay of 239 days in

filing the application for setting aside ex parte order. It is further

alleged that A-1 married one Sirisha on instigation of A-1 to A-4.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

allegations in the complaint prima facie do not attract any of the

offences alleged. Except making bald, vague and unspecific

allegations against the petitioners in the complaint, there are no

specific allegations prima facie attracting any of the ingredients of

the offences alleged. Learned counsel further contends that in the

complaint it is alleged that marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha was

held and they have one child out of the said marriage. There is no

mention as to the place, date and time of the said marriage

anywhere in the complaint. Learned counsel further contends that

there should be sapthapathi and homam which are essential for a

marriage, according to the law governing the parties and there is no

allegation regarding performance of the said two essential

ceremonies to show that marriage of A-1 was held with one Sirisha

and that A-2 to A-4 have abetted the said marriage of A-1.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the

following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

         i.     SHAFIYA        KHAN        @       SHAKUNTALA

                PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER1


    2022 SCC OnLine SC 167




         ii.       SMT.PRIYA          BALA       GHOSH         v.    SURESH

                   CHANDA GHOSH2

         iii.      MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM v. STATE OF

                   ASSAM         AND ANOTHER3.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent

contends that there are prima facie ingredients attracting the

offences alleged against the petitioners. The learned counsel

contends that it is the petitioners who have played fraud on the

court and tried to obtain an ex parte decree of divorce. Petitioners

herein abetted A-1 and got performed the second marriage of A-1

with one Sirisha and that A-1 is living with her and they have a

child. She prays for dismissal of the criminal petition while

subjecting the petitioners to raise all the issues before the trial court

at the time of trial.

8. In SHAFIYA KHAN's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court at paragraphs 19 and 20 held as under:

"Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at

1971(1) SCC 864

2022 SCC OnLine SC 82

least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged.

In the given circumstances and going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant which has been completely overlooked by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed at her instance under Section 482 Cr.PC".

9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, no material is

placed by the complainant in her complaint to justify the allegation

of second marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha, except making a bald

allegation that A-1 married one Sirisha and begot a child. Apart

from this, there is no factual supporting material for what has been

alleged in the complaint.

10. It is also pertinent to note that the marriage of the first

respondent and A-1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

by order dated 15.06.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.241 of 2015. The first

respondent also filed a complaint with police against her husband

(A-1) and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 for the offences punishable

under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against A-1 and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 for the above said

offences and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.1020 of

2011, on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,

Kukatpally, at Miyapur and after full-fledged trial, the case ended

in acquittal of petitioners on 31.07.2007. The first respondent also

filed domestic violence case i.e., D.V.C.No.96 of 2013 before the

learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur against A-1 and

petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and same was also dismissed by order

dated 30.12.2014.

11. A perusal of the copies of the orders in the above stated

cases shows the attitude of the first respondent in filing cases after

cases against A-1 and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 only with a view

to harassing them and in all the cases, the petitioners were

unnecessarily roped in with an oblique motive. Apart from the

above and as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners,

there is no mention as to the place, date and time of the second

marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha anywhere in the complaint.

Except making bald, vague and unspecific allegations against the

petitioners, there are no specific allegations in the complaint to

justify prima facie case attracting the offences alleged. Moreover,

the two essential ceremonies like sapthapathi and homam which

are essential for a marriage are also missing in the complaint.

12. In the circumstances, it is considered that continuance of

further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in

C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District would

only be an abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit

case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the

petitioners/A-2 to A-4.

13. The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against

the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of

the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur,

Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 08.04.2022 Lrkm