Mr. Thutipally Dhanunjay vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 929 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.273 of 2016
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.69 of 2014 on the file

of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet for the offences

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

Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act').

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the respondent

no 2 lodged a complaint against him before Mothey Police,

Nalgonda District on 15-10-2013 at 6:00 PM alleging that she was

married to the petitioner on 11-8-2012 at Haliya as per the customs

prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage her parents

gave net cash of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- worth gold and

silver ornaments, and household articles towards dowry. At the

time of marriage, her husband and his family members told them

that her husband was doing a software job at Pune and was earning

Rs.40,000/- per month. As such her family members believed their

words and gave the above dowry in the marriage. After marriage Dr.GRR,J

she came to know that A1 was not having any job and stated as

such only to get more dowry. She was harassed physically and

mentally by her husband and his relatives demanding additional

dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and necked her out from the house. Due to

their harassment she went to her parents' house at Sirikonda

Village and was residing with them since then. Basing on the said

report, police registered a case in Crime No.149 of 2013 under

Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against A1 to

A11 and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet

against A1 to A3, and A6 for the above offences, deleting the

names of A4, A5, A7 to A11 from the array of accused.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there was no iota of truth in the allegations made against the

petitioner. The respondent No.2 and her parents suppressed the fact

that the respondent No.2 was a divorcee and cheated the petitioner

and his family. Even during the investigation, the respondent No.2

suppressed the fact of her getting divorce from her 1st husband Dr.GRR,J

which would show her malafide intention. The complaint was

lodged with a considerable delay without any explanation for the

delay. The respondent No.2 had roped in all the family members of

the petitioner only to pressurize him. The petitioner had to look

after the welfare of A2 and A3. The marriage between the

petitioner and respondent No.2 was nullified vide O.P. No.115 of

2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda on 6-2-2015,

the respondent No.2 filed the complaint after receiving divorce

notice and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other

hand contended that O.P. No.115 of 2013 was an ex-parte divorce

decree challenged by the respondent No.2 and she was contesting

the said matter. O.P. No.115 of 2013 had not attained finality.

There were prima facie allegations against the petitioner, as such

police after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner.

This court could not look into the merits of the case in the petition

filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same should be decided during

trial and prayed to dismiss the petition.

Dr.GRR,J

6. Perused the record. The complaint would disclose prima

facie allegations against the petitioner that he and his family

members stated that he was doing a software job at Pune and was

earning Rs.40,000/- per month, which the respondent No.2

subsequently came to know that it was a false statement and when

she questioned him about his job he harassed her both physically

and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. She also stated

that he bet her with hands and harassed her both physically and

mentally and she was necked out from the house. Thus, there were

prima facie allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the

petitioner. The police after investigation also found the same to be

true and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and his parents and

A6.

7. This court cannot look into the allegations of the

petitioner that it was the respondent No.2 who cheated him by

suppressing the fact that she was a divorcee and that she filed the

complaint after receiving the divorce notice. The said facts can be

gone into during the trial and the veracity of the said statements can

be tested in the trial. Though the petitioner contended that he had to Dr.GRR,J

look after the welfare of A2 and A3 at the fag end of their lives and

they were suffering with old age ailments, had not filed the petition

including them to quash the charge sheet against them.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and

another Vs State of UP and another1 on the aspect 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.

9. But the present petition is filed not by the family

members of the petitioner but by the petitioner himself who is the

main accused and against whom there are prima facie allegations in

the complaint and in the charge sheet.

10. Hence the above judgment is not applicable to him. The

granting of ex-parte divorce decree in his favour is also not a

(2012) 10 SCC 741 Dr.GRR,J

relevant issue to consider in this petition. Hence it is considered

that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J February 25, 2022 KTL