Telangana High Court

Patnam Srinivasan, Prakasam Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp Anr., on 14 July, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                CRL.P.Nos.6400 and 7242 of 2013

COMMON ORDER:

       Crl.P.No.6400 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-4

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123

of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.

2.    Crl.P.No.7242 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner/A-3 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013

on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.

3.     Since these two criminal petitions arose out of the same crime

number and one P.R.C., they are being disposed of by way of

common order.

4.    The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before

the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur alleging that her

marriage with A-1 took place on 14.12.2006 at Gold Merchant

Association Community Hall, Gandhi Bazaar, Ongole, Prakasham

District. During the time of marriage, Rs.5.00 lakhs cash and 25 tulas

of gold were given towards dowry to the accused. Since the day of

marriage, in-laws started harassing the second respondent on one or

other pretext and suspecting her fidelity. It is alleged that A-1

harassed the second respondent physically and mentally for additional

dowry. The second respondent went to the house of her in-laws at

Ongole during the month of February, 2007 for leading marital life.

A-1 continued the harassment and used to come in drunken condition

and used to undress her and beat her till early hours of the following

day. On their demand, the father of the second respondent gave

additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 20.04.2007. A-3 husband of A-

4 expressed his sympathy towards her and took her forcefully in his

lap and tried to caress her, when the second respondent resisted and

tried to run away, upon which A-3 told that entire family would

support him. When she revealed the incident the entire family

supported him and warned her that she has no option except to satisfy

him and he tore her blouse. With great difficulty, the second

respondent hit him with pestle and he sustained injuries. It is also

alleged that the second respondent informed to A-1 and her father-in-

law, they called A-3 and A-4 and all of them gagged her mouth and

mercilessly beat her. Thereafter, the second respondent was brought

by A-1 to Hyderabad on 28.02.2007 and left her at her parents house.

5. It is also alleged that the mother-in-law of the second

respondent was insisting her to do all house-hold work and find fault

with her deliberately and used to abuse her in filthy language. During

the month of June, 2011, A-4 along with his cousin brother came to

her residence and threatened with dire consequences if additional

dowry is not given. On 16.03.2012 midnight her husband contacted

to the father of the second respondent and threatened him with dire

consequences if he does not convince his daughter to join him.

Basing on the complaint referred, a case in crime No.203 of 2012 was

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion

of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the A-1 and the

petitioners/A-2 and A-4 for the offences punishable under

Sections.498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

and under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act against A-3 and the same was numbered as

PRC.No.123 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate,

Miyapur. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions are

filed.

6. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first

respondent-State. None represented the second respondent. Perused

the material on record.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are relatives of husband of the second respondent and they

were residing in different places and she made all the allegations

against her husband only except saying that A-3 touched her hand in

the year 2007 and that too when her brief stay of two months in her

husband's house and when she went to the house of A-3 to discuss

the issue. Insofar as A-2 and A-4 are concerned, the learned Senior

counsel for the petitioners submits there are no allegations against the

petitioners/A-2 and A-4 except saying that they abused the second

respondent in her brief stay of two months at her in-laws house that

she is not cooking properly. Therefore, the continuation of

proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 without therebeing any

material allegations satisfying the alleged offences and making the

petitioners to undergo the rigor of trial, would amount to abuse of

process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.

8. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:

1. Preeti Gupta v.State of Jharkhand1

2. Geeta Mehrotra v.State of Uttar Pradesh2

3. K.Subba Rao v.State of Telangana3

4. Mirza Iqbal alias Golu v.State of Uttar Pradesh4

5. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.State of Bihar5

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is

sufficient material to frame the charges for the alleged offences

against the petitioners and the trial Court may be permitted to

proceed with the case and as such, there are no merits in the petitions

and the same may be dismissed.

10. A perusal of the allegations of the charge sheet would reveal

that A-1 is the husband of the second respondent, A-2 is the mother of

A-1. A-3 is the brother of A-1 and A-4 is the sister-in-law of A-1.

The marriage of A-1 and the second respondent took place on

14.12.2006 at Gold Merchant Association Community Hall, Gandhi

Bazaar, Ongole, Prakasham District. At the time of marriage, an

amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 25 tolas of gold was demanded, but on

negotiations dowry amount was reduced to Rs.5.00 lakhs and 25 tolas

of gold. The father of the second respondent spent huge amount in the

1 (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 2 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 3 (2018) 14 Supreme Court Cases 452 4 2021 SCC Online SC 1251 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

marriage. It is further alleged that A-1 and the second respondent

went to Tirupathi and returned to the house of the second respondent

and thereafter, the accused started suspecting infidelity of the second

respondent and used to beat her with belt. It is also alleged that the

second respondent went to the house of in-laws at Ongole during the

month of February, 2007 and A-1 continued harassment. It is alleged

that the second respondent informed the first petitioner and others,

but they did not take any steps. Further they demanded additional

dowry. The father of the second respondent paid Rs.3.00 lakhs on

20.04.2007.

11. The main allegations against the A-3, who is the husband of

A-4, is that he expressed sympathy towards her and took her forcibly

in his lap and tried to caress her and the second respondent resisted

and tried to run away and she informed the same to A-1 and her

father- in-law and they called A-3 and A-4 and all of them gagged her

mouth and mercilessly beat her and on 28.02.2007 A-1 left the second

respondent at her parents house.

12. The allegations of the charge sheet coupled with the statements

of the second respondent, her father and other witnesses reveal that

there is only allegation against the petitioner/A-3 that he expressed

his sympathy towards the second respondent and caught hold her

hand. She resisted the alleged incident occurred prior to 28.02.2007.

If at all there is truth in the allegations of the second respondent, so

far as A-3 is concerned, she being a software Engineer would not

have kept quite without taking any recourse from 12.06.2007 on

which date the second respondent was alleged to have molested by

the petitioner/A-3. . The said allegation prima facie do not make out

or satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under

Section 354 IPC and appears to have made with an oblique motive.

13. Coming to the allegations made against the petitioners/A-2 to

A-4 infact, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that they are

residents of Ongole, Prakasham District. Admittedly, in the

complaint, it is alleged that the second respondent is not living with

A-1 since 28.02.2007, on which date she was taken to her parents

house. The only allegation made by the second respondent after she

left to her parents house is that on 16.03.2012, A-1 called her and

threatened her with dire consequences. It appears these allegations

are prima facie appears to be made to implicate the petitioners

probably to bring pressure on the family.

14. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of opt observation

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.V.Rao v.LHV Prasad (2000) 3 SCC

"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 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."

15. Coming to the facts of the present case, when the contents of

charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, F.I.R. are perused, it

is apparent that all the main allegations are against A-1 for the alleged

offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, whereas the family members i.e. A-2 and A-4 who is

mother and sister in law of A-1 appears to have been implicated by

way of general and omni bus allegations and there is no specific and

distinct allegations have been made as to the role played by them in

the alleged offences. Insofar as, A-1 is concerned, the veracity of the

allegations made against him need not be examined by this Court,

since he is not before this Court. However, as far as the petitioners

are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and

omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

16. In Preeti Gupta (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as

under:

32. "It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. 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 acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law."

In Mizra Iqbal Alias Golu (supra 4), the Apex Court held as

under:

" However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife."

17. It is manifest from the judgments of the Apex Court relied on

by learned senior counsel as cited above, the false implication of the

relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes basing on general

and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in misuse of

the process of law. In the instant case, the relatives of A-1 i.e. A-2

to A-4 have been roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations and

without any specific instances of their involvement in the alleged

offences deserves to be quashed to avoid the rigor of undergoing trial.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that from the

averments of the complaint, F.I.R., charge sheet and the statements of

the witnesses apparently there is no sufficient to material prima facie

to proceed against the petitioners /A-2 to A-4 for the alleged offences.