Jabeen vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6684 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6684 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

Jabeen vs The State Of Telangana on 12 December, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

                                                  Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022
                                  1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.894 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners-

Accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them

in C.C.No.405 of 2018 pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for

short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short

"D.P. Act".

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the

record.

3. The petitioner No.1-Accused No.3 is sister of Accused No.1

and petitioner No.2-Accused No.4 is the son of Accused No.3. The

respondent No.2-de facto complainant lodged the present complaint

on 18.12.2017 stating that her marriage with Accused No.1 took

place on 07.06.2010. At the time of marriage, the parents of Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022

complainant gave gold ornaments and dowry to Accused No.1. After

three months of marriage, Accused No.1 left to Dubai and the

complainant stayed in the house of petitioner No.1 where she was

treated like a maid servant. Accused No.1 tortured her stating that

if he had married someone else he would have got more dowry and

also harassed her physically and mentally. A panchayat was held

before the elders and Accused No.1 undertook to look after the

complainant well. During the year 2015, the sister of complainant

was married and at that time while she was staying in her parents'

house, the matter was settled in between her and her husband and

both of them started living together in Hyderabad. Later, Accused

No.1 informed complainant over phone that an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- has to be given and beat her, for which reason

parents of complainant lodged a complaint with Abids Police Station.

After counseling at Bharosa Center, complainant was taken back by

Accused No.1. Even after fulfilling the demands of Accused No.1, he

continued harassing complainant. Petitioner No.2 herein-Accused

No.4 visited the house of complainant and Accused No.1 in

Hyderabad and his behavior was not proper. Further, Accused No.1

necked out complainant from the house and when she went to her

parents house, Accused No.1 went there and created nuisance, for Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022

which reason the present complaint was lodged with Humanyun

Nagar Police Station. Thereafter, the case was investigated by WPS,

CCS, DD Police Station and after completion of investigation, they

filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3, 4 of D.P. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the

petitioners are residents of Vijayawada and have nothing to do with

the marital affairs of the complainant and Accused No.1. The

question of harassing the complainant by these petitioners does not

arise as the complainant was living in Hyderabad. Further, he relied

upon the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others1

and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts

should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in

crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The

relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of

omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in

the crime are made out, they cannot be arrayed as Accused.

Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022

5. As seen from the complaint, the allegation against these

petitioners is that petitioner No.1 treated the complainant like a maid

servant when Accused No.1 went to Dubai. Except the said

allegation, there are no other instances narrated by the complainant

as to how the petitioner No.1 subjected the complainant to any kind

of cruelty over a period of nearly seven years as narrated in the

complaint. Even according to the complaint, the allegation against

petitioner No.2-Accused No.4 who is the son of petitioner No.1-

Accused No.3 is that when petitioner No.2 went to Hyderabad and

stayed in the house of Accused No.1 and complainant, his behavior

was not good.

6. Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder.

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. As seen from the allegations, there is no instance to suggest

any willful conduct of such a nature to drive the woman to commit

suicide nor any demand for dowry was made by these petitioners to

fall with the meaning of cruelty.

8. Such vague allegations and treatment like a maid servant by

petitioner No.1 and behavior of petitioner No.2 not being good

cannot be made basis to continue the criminal prosecution against

the petitioners as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others. The said

Judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case as

discussed above. Except making such vague allegations, no specific

event or instances are narrated by the complainant against these