Deepthi Reddy Katakam Rep. By Her ... vs The State Of Telangana Rep. By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1499 Tel

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.10100 of 2017


ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner-A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to quash the proceedings in CC No.86 of 2017 on the file of XII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, taken on file for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act').

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

lodged a complaint before the Ghatkesar Police on 03.10.2016 at 8.00 PM

stating that she was married with A1 on 23.04.2015 at Hyderabad. At the

time of marriage, as per the demand of A1 to A4, her parents presented 40

tulas of gold, one acre of agricultural land worth Rs.70.00 lakhs, a plot to

an extent of 300 square yards worth Rs.50.00 lakhs and net cash of

Rs.30.00 lakhs before engagement. After engagement, her husband and in-

laws demanded for additional dowry. At the initial stage, her parents

decided to cancel the marriage, but at the intervention of A5 an amicable

settlement was made, and the marriage was performed in the presence of a

Christian Pastor i.e.Rev. Arch Bishiop Thumma Bala. A1 was working in

USA at the time of marriage. Few days after the marriage, she joined her

husband at USA. After the marriage also, A1 to A4 demanded an amount Dr.GRR,J

of Rs.3.00 lakhs for expenses for travelling to USA in the form of

additional dowry. Their marriage was registered as per Hindu Marriage

Act. After she went to USA, she became pregnant. A1 forced her to go for

abortion, but she managed to continue. A2 to A4 also harassed her over

phone and demanded for 1/6th share of her parents' assets. At the

instigation of A2 to A4, A1 harassed her. An argument took place between

her and A1 with regard to the name of the child. A1 to A4 kept the

documents pertaining to the land and plot with them, even after

disagreement took place between them. Moreover, the accused made false

representations and assertions and failed to stick to their words. Basing on

the said report, police registered a case vide Crime No.381 of 2016 for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.

Act. After completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to

A5 for the above offences. The case was taken cognizance by the XIII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 420, 406 IPC and 3 and 4 of the DP Act against A1 to A4

and for the offence under Section 420 IPC against A5.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

1st respondent.

Dr.GRR,J

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner - A4 submitted that the

allegations in the charge sheet even if taken on their face value, would not

prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner.

The petitioner, sister of A1, was falsely implicated in the case even though

she had nothing to do with the family life of A1 and the 2nd respondent. The

petitioner was married on 15.08.2014 and was living separately with her

husband in Virginia, USA. The marriage of A1 and the 2nd respondent took

place on 23.05.2015 after the marriage of the petitioner. There were no

specific allegations of harassment or demand for dowry against the

petitioner except some sweeping, bald, omnibus and baseless allegations

and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.86 of

2017.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there were

allegations against the petitioner both in the report filed by the 2nd

respondent as well as in the charge sheet filed by the police due to which

cognizance was taken by the court against the petitioner also for the above

offences and prayed to dismiss the petition.

Dr.GRR,J

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide the

petition on merits.

7. Perused the record. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the

2nd respondent before the police would disclose that the allegations of

harassment were mainly against A1. No specific allegations were made by

the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein. Admittedly, the petitioner

was a married woman, whose marriage was performed prior to the

marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1. The petitioner was living

separately in the State of Virginia in USA, whereas the 2nd respondent lived

with A1 in the State of North Carolina, USA, which was about 500 KMs

away from Virginia. Except making some vague allegations that A2 to A4

instigated A1 in harassing her, no specific allegations were made by the 2nd

respondent against the petitioner herein.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preethi Gupta and another v. State of

Jharkhand and another1, wherein it was 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

2010 (7) SCC 667 Dr.GRR,J

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."

9. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another2, wherein it was

held that:

"...there is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents who may be accused of demanding dowry or causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, clear supporting material is needed to proceed against other relatives of a husband."

10. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

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

others3, wherein it was held that:

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that

2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 393 (SC)

Crl.A. No.195 of 2022, dated 08.02.2022 Dr.GRR,J

false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."

11. Considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the above cases, and in the present case also the allegations levelled against

the petitioner herein were only general in nature without any specific role

attributed to the petitioner, forcing the petitioner to undergo trial is only an

abuse of process of law. Hence, it is considered fit to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.86 of 2017 on the file of XII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

Dr.GRR,J

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner - A4 in CC No.86 of 2017 on the file of

XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

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