Telangana High Court
Haseena vs Shadab Fatima on 1 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12718 OF 2018
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners in CC No.218 of 2015 on the file of XV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are A2 and A3. According to the case of the
prosecution A1 was married to the 1st respondent on 22.12.2007
and dower was given in accordance with Muslim Personal law. The
petitioners allegedly informed that A1 was working in Australia and
at the time of marriage, Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 15 tulas of gold and
jahez articles were given to A1 in the presence of these petitioners
and jahez list was also prepared. Six months after the marriage,
these petitioners and A1 started passing sadistic remarks against
defacto complainant and that A1 at the instigation of these
petitioners, demanded the defacto complainant additional dowry of
Rs.5.00 lakhs for sending her to Australia. The defacto complainant
went to Australia where A1 tortured her mentally and also forced to
work in Australia. These petitioners allegedly used to instigate A1
on phone and several instances were also narrated stating that A1
has harassed the defacto complainant in Australia and she
tolerated the harassment on the hope that the A1 would mend his
behavior.
3. Since A1 and these petitioners were always asking for
additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the defacto complainant went to
her parents house and lodged the complaint.
4. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against A1
and these petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, 406
and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st
petitioner is aged more than 60 years and 2nd petitioner is aged
more than 72 years. Even according to the charge sheet, they were
residing in Hyderabad and the defacto complainant was residing
along with A1 in Australia and they have nothing to do with the
events that transpired in Australia.
6. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that several factual issues are stated and they
can only be decided after trial. This Court cannot interfere in the
said case at this juncture.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v.
State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that
incidents would have been exaggerated and have to be looked into
carefully. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, it was held that criminal proceedings can be quashed and
guidelines were also given.
8. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar
[(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], it is held that when there are
vague and omnibus allegations against family members of the
husband, in such instances, High Court can quash the proceedings
invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. Even according to the complainant, the allegations against
these petitioners are that they were supporting A1 and instigated
A1. After marriage, A1 left for Australia and the defacto
complainant followed A1 to Australia and there, the defacto
complainant and A1 lived together. There are several allegations of
harassment against A1, it is stated that these petitioners were
calling A1 on phone and abetted the said harassment.
10. Allegations are made against these petitioners, who are
residents of Hyderabad that they made phone calls to Australia and
at the instance of these petitioners, A1 allegedly harassed the
defacto complainant. The statement made is an assumption that
these petitioners abetted A1 to harass her. These petitioners calling
A1 who is their son and talking to him would not amount to
instigating A1 to harass the defacto complainant. Except making
bald allegations of abetting A1 and also that in the presence of
these petitioners, jahez articles were taken by A1, are not sufficient
to proceed with the prosecution for the alleged offences. As observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
others v. State of Bihar(supra), the allegations against these
petitioners are vague in nature and omnibus allegations of abetting
A1 are made. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against
these petitioners are liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 and A3
in CC No.218 of 2015 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 01.11.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12718 of 2018
Date: 01.11.2022.
kvs
