Guddeti Sarojana And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1593 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.1262 OF 2023

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.7462 of 2022 on

the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda for the offences

under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the 2nd

respondent and 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law and 4th

petitioner is the husband of 3rd petitioner.

3. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that her marriage was

performed with A1 on 11.11.2020. At the time of marriage, on

specific demand of these petitioners and A1, dowry to the

extent of Rs.40.00 lakhs was given in the form of cash, gold

ornaments, motor cycle and other house hold articles. The

said household articles and gold ornaments were given to A1

in the presence of elders. 15 days after the marriage, the 2nd

respondent and A1 lead happy life. However, these petitioners

started harassing the 2nd respondent stating that she had

brought less dowry and A1 would have got around Rs.1.00

Crore dowry if he was married to someone else. A1 harassed

and beat the 2nd respondent to bring additional dowry and

such harassment was meted out at the instance of petitioners

1 and 2/parents-in-law. Panchayat was held for the reason of

A1 and others harassing the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, A1

took the 2nd respondent with him to America on 27.07.2021.

Both stayed in USA. However, A1 was talking to another

woman and used to insist that the 2nd respondent should get

additional dowry of Rs.1.00 Crore and the 2nd respondent was

beaten by A1 several times, for which reason, she lodged

complaint with Oxford City, MS State, police department.

Counseled by the police, complaint was taken back. Both A1

and the 2nd respondent returned to India on 30.07.2022 and

from Shamshabad Airport, the 2nd respondent was taken to

her parents' house and dropped there. Panchayat was held for

the reason of A1 and 2nd respondent not getting along well. In

the panchayat, A1 informed that he loved another girl and

intends to give divorce to the 2nd respondent, for which reason,

complaint was made to the Women Police Station on

26.08.2022. On the basis of the said complaint, the police

investigated the case and filed charge sheet for the offences

under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

false case has been filed in the USA and the Oxford City Police

in US had reported that the complaint was false. He further

submits that the 2nd respondent stayed only for 15 days in the

house of her husband and thereafter, left to USA, as such, the

question of harassing the 2nd respondent does not arise. In the

said circumstances, when the 2nd respondent never stayed

with the petitioners, there cannot be any harassment.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the

respondents that specific allegations are leveled against all

these petitioners and the 2nd respondent was harassed when

she was in India and also after she came back from US. As

such, the proceedings have to go and it is for the trial Court to

decide the culpability or otherwise of the petitioners.

6. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent went to USA after

marriage. All the allegations are leveled against A1 stating that

he had illegal intimacy with other woman and was demanding

to get additional dowry. Aggrieved by the conduct of A1, the

2nd respondent allegedly lodged a complaint with the police in

the USA, who had conducted investigation. Even according to

the present investigation, the 2nd respondent was allegedly

harassed for additional dowry of Rs.1.00 Crore by all the

petitioners herein. It is alleged that A1 used to listen to his

parents and demanded to get Rs.1.00 Crore from the 2nd

respondent.

7. After marriage, the 2nd respondent had stayed with her

husband in the USA and after return from USA, she was

staying in her parents' house. While she was in India prior to

her visit to USA, there was never any complaint or instance

that is narrated regarding any harassment that was meted

out. The only allegation after she returned from USA is that

while she was staying in India prior to her proceeding to USA

along with A1, there was demand for additional dowry of

Rs.1.00 Crore. The allegations appear to be false for the reason

of the 2nd respondent proceeding to USA. If at all the parents,

husband and others i.e., sister-in-law had forced her to part

with the dowry of Rs.1.00 Crore, it appears improbable that

she was taken to USA by A1 where stayed along with him.

Since bald allegation is made regarding the demand of dowry

of Rs.1.00 Crore, which appears to be improbable for the

reasons mentioned above, this Court deems it appropriate to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

8. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of

Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct

allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be

quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be

careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the

basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta

v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667]

held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made

with great care and circumspection, especially against

husband's relatives who were living in different cities and

rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

10. Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid judgments, the proceedings against the

petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2

to A5 in C.C.No.7462 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 12.04.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1262 OF 2023

Dt.12.04.2023

kvs