Telangana High Court
Madavath Parvathi vs The State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5633 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners in C.C No.172 of 2020 on the file of XIX Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri.
2. The 1st and 4th petitioners are A2 and A5 who are parents-in-
law of 2nd Respondent, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are A3 and A4, who
are brothers of A1 and 5th petitioner is the sister of A1.
3. The 2nd respondent filed complaint before the police stating
that she was married to A1 on 04.06.2018 and at the time of
marriage, Rs.30.00 lakhs dowry along with other furniture was
given. After marriage, she started living in the house of in-laws
which was a joint family. For the first six months, the 2nd
respondent was looked after well. Since A1 was working in Raichur,
he used to visit Raichur and at that time, these petitioners allegedly
harassed her physically and mentally. The petitioners used to state
that if A1 was married to someone else, he would have got dowry of
Rs.1.00 crore. She was also beaten by the petitioners. The 2nd
respondent held panchayat in the presence of elders and thereafter
she went along with A1 and started living in Raichur. There at
Raichur, A1 harassed her physically and mentally at the instance of
these petitioners. On 29.03.2019, A1 left the 2nd respondent in
Raichur and did not go back to Raichur. Thereafter, the phone of A1
was switched off. Further these petitioners also wanted 1st accused
to give divorce to 2nd Respondent.
4. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. Having investigated the case, the police filed
charge sheet against these petitioners and A1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that even according to the defacto complainant, she was staying
with her husband at Raichur. Initially, she was looked after well
and except making bald allegation that she was beaten by the
petitioners, no specific instances are given regarding the said
beating. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6
Supreme Court Cases 599, held that general and omnibus
allegations are insufficient to prosecute the relatives of the
husband. She also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Petition Nos.463 and 504 of 2020 dated 01.11.2022.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
2nd respondent submits that there are specific allegations regarding
these petitioners beating the 2nd respondent, for which reason,
panchayt was held. Thereafter, she accompanied A1 and stayed at
Raichur where she was subjected to harassment by A1 at the
instance of these petitioners, as such, when there are specific
allegations of harassment by these petitioners, the proceedings
cannot be quashed.
7. I have gone through the record. It is apparent that the 2nd
respondent while staying with the parents-in-law after marriage was
taken care and looked after well. However, the 2nd respondent
claims that these petitioners were harassing her, for which reason,
a panchayat was held and thereafter she accompanied A1 and
started living at Raichur. The allegation that these petitioners have
beaten the 2nd respondent is unacceptable for the reason of
vagueness of the statement made without giving specific instances.
2nd Respondent stating that she was beaten for the reason, if A1
was married to someone else, Rs.1.00 crore dowry would have been
given appears to have been made up for the purpose of the case for
the reason of its vagueness.
8. The necessity to lodge complaint arose in Raichur when the
2nd respondent was living with her husband. According to her, A1
left her at Raichur and came back and avoided her. Elders were
also examined as L.Ws.9 and 10 and also the neighbours. Their
statements reveal that the said information regarding harassment
was given by the 2nd respondent. These witnesses are stating only
on the basis of information given by 2nd respondent, which is
hearsay evidence. There are no details about the length of time she
stayed with the petitioners after being looked after well for six
months after marriage and before going to Raichur to stay along
with A1.
9. On the basis of vaguely stating that these petitioners have
beaten her and also instigated A1, such allegations would not be
sufficient in the absence of narrating any events or occasions when
such beating had taken place. In the absence of such details, the
proceedings cannot be continued against these petitioners.
10. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 to A6 in
CC No.172 of 2020 on the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri are hereby
quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:27.12.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5633 of 2022
Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs
