K.Raja Reddy, Nallakunta Anr., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4802 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     CRL.P.No.5185 OF 2014
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in

C.C.No.33 of 2011, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State. None

appears for the second respondent/de facto complainant. Perused

the records.

3. The second respondent filed a complaint before Nallakunta

Police Station, Hyderabad and same was registered as Cr.No.64 of

2011 against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and took up investigation.

After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet in

C.C.No.33 of 2011.

4. A-1 is the husband of the first respondent, A-2 is the mother,

A-3 is the father and A-4 is the sister of A-1. The second

respondent alleged in the complaint that her marriage with A-1 was

performed on 25.02.2010 At Venkateshwaraswamy Temple at

Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. After the marriage, they stated living

together and A-1 started harassing her demanding money and also

maintenance expenses. He has also not provided any shelter and

food. A-1 also failed to permit her to continue her education and

due to his and his family harassment, she is unable to complete her

second year ECE. A-1 used to harass her that due to love marriage,

he is not getting any money and properties and had he married

another lady, he would have got huge dowry. She alleges that she

is suffering with her husband and in-laws due to illegal demand of

dowry and to get gold ornaments along with property. It is also

alleged that A-1, A-2 and the petitioners harassed her as she is only

daughter to her parents and her parents are living in U.S.A. Based

on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.64 of

2013 for the offences stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the

present criminal petition is filed by petitioners/A-3 and A-4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no

allegations against the petitioners, only omnibus allegations are

leveled against them. The allegations even do not make out a prima

facie offence against them. He further submits that the second

respondent and A-1 entered into compromise and in OP.No.977 of

2014, decree of divorce on mutual consent was granted by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad on 27.07.2018. He

further submits that DVC case was also filed by the second

respondent in DVC.No.164 of 2011 and said case was also

dismissed on 09.05.2014 and, therefore, he prayed to quash the

proceedings.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits to decide the

case on merits.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in PREETI GUPTA v. STATE

OF JHARKHAND1, at para Nos.30, 31 and 32 held as under:

30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

(2010) 7 SCC 667

31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, `cruelty' means:-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

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.

8. Having gone through the law laid down in the judgment of

Apex Court stated supra, coming to the facts of the present case, a

plain reading of the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet

disclose that nothing is alleged against the petitioners and only

omni bus allegations made against the petitioners, who are father

and sister of A-1 except stating that the second respondent was

harassed physically and mentally, taking advantage of her

loneliness as her parents are staying in U.S.A. The averments in

the charge sheet do not reveal any specific role played

by each accused in the alleged harassment

and ill-treatment of additional dowry by the petitioners. It is not

stated as to what date harassment was done and whether they are

living separately or not. There is no specific allegation against the

petitioners about the ill-treatment or harassment about subjecting of

the second respondent to cruelty to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security. Prima facie, there are allegations

against A-1. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the marriage of A-1 and the second respondent was

dissolved by obtaining mutual consent divorce and DVC case was

also dismissed. Unfortunately, without there being any specific

allegations, the petitioners have been implicated and the same

would certainly lead to insurmountable harassment and agony to

them.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that since there is

no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners/A-3 and

A-4, it would be unfair to compel them to undergo the rigmarole of

trial. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners to avoid the abuse of process of law by

invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in C.C.No.33 of

2011, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 21.09.2022 Nvl

7. A careful perusal of the allegations in the complaint and the

charge sheet, coupled with the statements of witnesses would

reveal that they totally revolve around A-1 for having ill-treated

and demanded the first respondent to get dowry.

There are no specific allegations against A-2 and A-3, who are

mother and brother of A-1. The only allegations against A-1 and

A-2 in the charge sheet are that they tortured the first respondent

mentally and physically and A-3 used to instigate A-1. Except the

above allegations, nowhere it alleged in the complaint that A-2 and

A-3 made illegal demand of additional dowry or subjected her to

cruelty. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the accused

approached the parents of the first respondent for an amicable

settlement and accordingly, the matter was settled for an amount of

Rs.5,61,000/-, besides agreeing to give the gold and costly gift

items to the first respondent. The accused also paid Rs.1 lakh in

cash, but failed to return jahez articles and other items which

includes gold etc. The accused handed over a cheque for

Rs.4,61,000/- and when it was presented, it was returned

dishonoured. Surprisingly, in the FIR and charge sheet, A-4, who

is sister of A-1, was also arrayed, when there are no specific

allegations against her.