Telangana High Court

Smt J.Aruna Another vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp ... on 22 September, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
                    CRL.P.No.14787 OF 2013
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 & A-3 in

C.C.No.677 of 2013, on the file of the learned III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for

the second respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the first respondent/State. Perused the record.

3. The second respondent filed a complaint before Uppal Police

Station, Hyderabad and the same was registered as

Cr.No.709 of 2011 against A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6

of the Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. After

completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet in

C.C.No.677 of 2013.

4. The allegations of the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

A-1 is the husband of the second respondent, A-2 and A-3

are the sisters of A-1. The marriage of the second respondent was 2 ASR,J Crlp_14787_2013

held with A-1 on 10.02.2005 at Vemulawada Temple and the said

marriage was love marriage. A-1 forcibly got married her with an

intention to cheat her and hide the secret of second marriage with

his sister's daughter. He promised to register their marriage. After

they returned to Hyderabad, she requested A-1 to register the

marriage. But he did not turn-up. The second respondent a received

notice from one Sabitha, who is the daughter of sister of A1,

to the Banjara Hills Police Station where she was working, that

A-1 got married her, on 10.02.2005 and got registered the

marriage. Till then, she was not aware of the marriage. After that

A-1 informed her that he is not concerned with the marriage, as his

family members forced him to marry his sister's daughter and

assured that he would give divorce within six months. On

believing his words, the second respondent continued her marital

relationship with A-1 and the marriage was consummated and both

of them were blessed with two children. A-1 did not introduce his

family members to the second respondent and when his mother

died, the second respondent went to attend funeral, A-2 who is the

elder sister of A-1 threatened her. The parents of the second

respondent gave 100 yards of plot at Venkat Reddy Nagar, 3 ASR,J Crlp_14787_2013

Ramanthapur and 15 tolas of gold and house hold articles to her

and her family members has taken care of her in all the aspects.

Since three months prior to the date of giving complaint, A-1 in

association with the petitioners harassed the second respondent

with suspicious attitude and not allowed her to go outside from the

house and kept her in the house. It is also alleged that A-1 also

gave Rs.2.00 lakhs to Smt.Sabitha, who is his sister's daughter.

Besides that the salary, gold and the plot documents of the second

respondent were kept by A-1 at his fourth sister's house. Based on

the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.709 of

2011 for the offences stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the

present criminal petition is filed by petitioners/A-2 & A-3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the

allegations in the complaint nor the charge sheet or the statements

of the witnesses disclose anything specific against the petitioners.

The allegations even do not make out a prima facie offence against

them and continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse

of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings. He relied 4 ASR,J Crlp_14787_2013

on the judgments of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1 and

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.State of Bihar2.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that from a

reading of the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of

the witnesses would disclose prima facie material for framing

charges against the petitioners and to proceed with the trial.

As such, she prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In Kahkashan Kausar's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court

at para Nos.15 and 16 held as under:

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v.State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741) it was observed:

It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693) wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

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.

(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667

(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599 5 ASR,J Crlp_14787_2013

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." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-

"6....The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

8. The above decision clearly demonstrate that the Hon'ble

Apex Court has expressed concern over the misuse of

Section 498-A IPC and increased tendency of implicating relatives

of husband in matrimonial disputes.

9. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case, a perusal

of the contents of the charge sheet reveals that omnibus allegations

are leveled against the petitioners. There are no specific and

definite allegations are made against them. The allegations of the

charge-sheet simply lead to the conclusion that there is no role

played by the petitioners in furtherance of the alleged offences.

                                       6                                 ASR,J
                                                              Crlp_14787_2013

The allegations are therefore, general and omnibus. The entire

allegations are mainly revolving round A-1 who is A-1.

10. In this connection, it is relevant to go through the provisions

of Section 498-A IPC, 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."

11. The basic ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are cruelty and

harassment. Explanation to the said Section mainly deals with

harassment of a woman where such harassment was with a view to

coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for valuable security or

any demand for additional dowry. Coming to the facts of the

present case, a plain reading of the allegations in the complaint and

charge sheet, coupled with the reading the statements of witnesses, 7 ASR,J Crlp_14787_2013

disclose that there are no specific allegations against the

petitioners/ A-2 and A-3, attracting any of the alleged offences.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the

ingredients of Section 498-A, 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act are lacking in the charge sheet. In the