Telangana High Court
Jadi Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 1 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.7073 OF 2019
Between:
Jadi Prasad and others. ...Petitioners
And
State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 7073 of 2019
% Dated 01.11.2022
# Jadi Prasad and others. ... Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.B.Rachana Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7073 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the
Charge sheet dt.22.07.2019 in C.C.No.220 of 2019 on the file of Judicial
First Class Magistrate at Yellandu, against the petitioners. The
petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the said case. The
offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A and Sections 3
& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed a written complaint
stating that on 25.06.2011 as per Christian customs, she was married
to 1st petitioner/A1 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.5 lakhs
towards dowry and Rs.2 lakhs worth household articles and gold
ornaments were also given. After one year son was born. Accused No.1
got job as a Government Teacher and since then he started harassing
the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.2
lakhs, failing which he would marry another woman. The 2nd and 3rd
petitioners who are parents of A1 also supported 1st petitioner and
ultimately she was necked out from the house. There was reconciliation
and the defacto complainant again joined the petitioners, however, the
demand for additional dowry continued and accused No.1 also
threatened defacto complainant that he would marry another woman.
The 1st petitioner filed for restitution of conjugal rights on 03.11.2015
and also divorce petition in the year 2017.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto
complainant had deserted the 1st petitioner; and that the 1st petitioner-
husband has filed restitution application in the year 2015 and since she
failed to join 1st petitioner, he filed for divorce in the year 2017. The
defacto complainant/2nd respondent was away from the 1st petitioner
since 2015 and chose to file present complaint in the year 2019 after
grant of divorce on 25.09.208 vide D.O.P.No.319 of 2017 by the Family
Court Judge at Adilabad. He further submits that there are no specific
allegations against the petitioners and the charge sheet filed under
Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have
to be quashed.
5. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that there
are several facts which have been narrated in the complaint and also
the statement of the witnesses, for which reason, the case has to be
tried by the concerned Court; that only after examination of witnesses it
can be concluded whether the allegations are correct or not; and that at
the inception when there is a prima facie case the proceedings cannot
be quashed.
6. It is admitted that for the reason of desertion by the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant, the 1st petitioner filed petition for
restitution of conjugal rights vide O.P.No.436/2015 before the Family
Court at Adilabad. Thereafter, having waited for two years, divorce
application was filed in the year 2017. The Family Court Judge having
examined witnesses and considering the events that transpired between
the petitioners and the defacto complainant found that the defacto
complainant was not willing to join the company of the 1st petitioner, as
such the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was closed on
20.04.2017.
7. Court found that on perusal of the deposition of the 1st petitioner,
the defacto complainant has deserted the 1st petitioner and the 1st
petitioner was subjected to cruelty. Further, the Family court found
that the defacto complainant had made up her mind not to cooperate
for leading peaceful conjugal life and insisted that the 1st petitioner
should stay away from her parents who are petitioners 2 and 3. In the
said circumstances when the defacto complainant deserted the 1st
petitioner it amounts to cruelty and divorce was granted. The present
complaint was filed nearly after 8 months of granting of divorce by the
Family Court. The only allegation that is leveled against the petitioners
is that the 1st petitioner had asked for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs.
8. The case for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in the year
2015 as the defacto complainant deserted the 1st petitioner. As the
Judge, Family Court, found on examination of witnesses that the
defacto complainant had deserted him and subjected the 1st petitioner-
husband to cruelty, divorce was granted. When the defacto complainant
has deserted the 1st petitioner prior to 2015, there is no explanation for
the delay of nearly four years in lodging the criminal complaint.
Admittedly, the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant never lead
marital life thereafter. The allegation of demanding for additional dowry
as mentioned in the complaint appears to have been made up.
9. The main reason found by the Family Court in divorce
proceedings was that the defacto complaint was aggrieved by the fact
that the 1st petitioner was taking care of his aged parents who are 2nd
and 3rd petitioners. The allegation regarding demand of additional
dowry, if at all, prior to the year 2015 is made vaguely and no specific
instances of such demand or confrontation are made in the complaint
or the statements of the witnesses examined during the investigation.
Further, the 1st petitioner who is the son of 2nd and 3rd petitioners has
bounden duty to take care of his parents and the defacto complainant
objecting to 1st petitioner taking care of his parents would amount to
cruelty and consequent to grant of divorce by the family Court on the
ground of cruelty of the defacto complainant, filing of criminal
complaint under Section 498-A is deliberate and to harass the
petitioners.
10. In the background of the case of desertion by the defacto
complainant prior to 2015 and there being no relation between the
defacto complainant with the 1st petitioner for nearly four years and
thereafter filing the complaint in the year 2019, are valid grounds to
interfere with the continuance of criminal proceedings against these
petitioners. No useful purpose would be served in the background of the
case and the events that transpired between 1st petitioner and the
defacto complainant.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
in C.C.No.220/2019, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at
Yellandu, against the petitioners, are quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition, shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt. 01.11.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7073 of 2019
Dt. 01.11.2022
tk
