Telangana High Court

Gopu Rajender Reddy And 9 Others vs Gopu Krishnaveni And Another on 25 February, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.5332 of 2017

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A10 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.380 of

2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the

1st respondent - de facto complainant filed a complaint against the

petitioners before Kagaznagar police on 16.12.2010 stating that she

was married with the 1st petitioner on 10.12.2010. The family of

the 1st petitioner was known to them and her mother refused the

said alliance. But, due to the acquaintance and the promise made

by the 1st petitioner, she trusted him, went along with him and later

they were married in Saibaba temple at Mancherial in the presence

of the family members and other relatives of the 1st petitioner.

Immediately after the marriage, she went to his house at

Kagaznagar. The 1st petitioner and his parents and the other

relatives told her that they agreed for the marriage to take revenge,

as her mother refused the alliance and demanded Rs.40.00 lakhs as Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

dowry and unless she got the said amount, they would not allow

her to live separately. She further stated that they threatened to kill

her if she revealed the same to her mother, brother or any other

person and they confined her in the said house. The 1st respondent

further stated that on 13.12.2010 her mother became ill and was

admitted at Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar. On receiving the

information, she requested her husband and in-laws to allow her to

see her mother, but they refused. On her persistent requests, the 1st

petitioner along with 5 persons brought her to the Apollo Hospital.

She found her mother in miserable condition. She informed the

entire incident to her mother and brother and from there, her

mother took her to their house at Kagaznagar. She stated that at that

time also the 1st petitioner and his associates tried to stop them, but

they escaped from them and came to Kagaznagar. Basing on the

said report, the police registered Crime No.134 of 2010 for the

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

Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') and after completing

the investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners - A1 to

A10 for the above offences.

Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

after the police registered the above crime, the petitioners filed an

application before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P.

No.1130 of 2011, but due to lack of communication between the

petitioners and their counsel, the said petition was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2014. The petitioners were not

in knowledge of withdrawal of the said criminal petition. As such,

they had filed another petition vide Crl.P. No.1059 of 2015 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crl.P.No.134 of

2010 of Kagaznagar Police Station and an interim stay was granted

by this Court in the said petition directing the police not to arrest

the petitioners until further orders. While the matter was pending,

police Kagaznagar proceeded with the investigation and filed

charge sheet, as such, Crl.P. No.1059 of 2015 became infructuous

and the petitioners undertook to withdraw the same. As the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur was proceeding with the Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

trial in CC No.380 of 2015, the petitioners filed the present

petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

after registration of the above crime, the 1st respondent and the

1st petitioner entered into a deed of divorce by mutual consent

(customary divorce) engrossed on a Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp

paper in which both the parties have agreed that they would not

have any claim of whatsoever against each other. Subsequently,

the 1st respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(a)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at

Asifabad vide OP No.11 of 2011 and an ex parte decree of divorce

was granted vide order dated 21.12.2011. He further submitted that

the petitioners were not guilty on any offence as alleged by the

1st respondent. Moreover, the 1st respondent mis-utilizing

provisions of law, arrayed all the family members of the

1st petitioner including the sister and brother in law, who were

married long back and were living separately and the other

petitioners who were living at different places. Hence, it was

clearly an abuse of process of law. Moreover, the divorce was Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

already granted long back in the year 2011. As such, continuation

of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC was not maintainable and

no purpose would be served and prayed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners in CC No.380 of 2015 as it was nothing but

an abuse of process of law.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other

hand, contended that there were prima facie allegations against the

petitioners in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet filed by

the police. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations could be

decided only during the trial but they could not be decided in an

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide

the petition on merits.

8. Perused the record. The charge sheet would disclose that

the complaint was filed by the 1st respondent on 16.12.2010 five

days after her marriage with the 1st petitioner on 10.12.2010. As

per her complaint, she willingly got married the 1st petitioner as he Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

was a known person to her and believing the promise made by him,

she trusted him and went along with him and got married him in

the presence of the parents, family members and other relatives of

the 1st petitioner. She stated that the 1st petitioner and his parents

and all other relatives demanded Rs.40.00 lakhs as dowry and they

threatened her not to intimate the same either to her mother, brother

or any other person, otherwise they would kill her. This statement

appears to be contradictory on the face of it. Without informing her

mother, brother or any other person how she would be able to meet

the demand of dowry is defying the logic. She stated that she was

confined in the house, but on the other hand, stated that she came to

know about her mother being admitted in the hospital and went to

the hospital along with the 1st petitioner. She also further stated

that she found her mother in a miserable condition but, stated that

she went along with her mother and brother to their house at

Kagaznagar by escaping from her husband and his associates. All

these statements prima facie appear to be unbelievable. She had

implicated all the relatives of the 1st petitioner including the

grandfather of A1, aged about 72 years shown as A9, who was

reported to be died recently, the married sister (A4) of A1 and the Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

brother-in-law (A5) of A1, the paternal uncles and Aunt of A1 as

A7, A8 and A10 and the younger brother of A1 as A6, without any

specific allegations against each of them. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in Preethi Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and

another1, held that:

"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

2010 (7) SCC 667 Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and

another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 held that:

"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result

2012 (10) SCC 741 Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

22. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that:

"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry."

But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.

23. In the instant matter, when the complainant and her husband are divorced as the complainant-wife secured an ex-parte decree of divorce, the same could have weighed Dr.GRR,J Crlp.No.5332 of 2017

with the High Court to consider whether proceeding initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite of absence of specific allegations at least against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not have amounted to abuse of the process of the court. The High Court, however, seems not to have examined these aspects carefully and have thus side- tracked all these considerations merely on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction could be raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial."

10. Hence, considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court and as the charge sheet would not disclose prima facie

allegations of the offences alleged against the petitioners under

Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, all

the relatives of the 1st petitioner who were living in different places

were also roped in by the 1st respondent - de facto complainant and

their marriage which was very short lived also ended in a divorce

and it was reported that both the parties were again married and

settled in their lives, it is considered a fit case to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners - A1 to A10, as continuation of

the proceedings was nothing but an abuse of process of court.