D. Poolamma vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1669 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.833 of 2020 on the

file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at ramannapet,

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District for the offences under Sections

448, 427, 498-A of IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The 2nd respondent is wife of A1, who filed the complaint

stating that she was married to A1 in the year 2014 and at the

time of marriage, Rs.28.00 lakhs worth cash, gifts and other

household articles were given. Four years after the marriage,

she was being harassed by A1 and she tried to commit suicide

at her parents' house. Since two years prior to filing the

complaint, she was residing at her parents' house. According

to her complaint, cause of harassment was A1/husband and

these petitioners. A1 and these petitioners visited the house of

2nd respondent and picked up quarrel and damaged articles in

the house. When the neighbours came to the house, these

petitioners and A1 left. Thereafter complaint was lodged with

police, who after investigation filed charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that there are no specific allegations which are leveled

against these petitioners and on the basis of vague and bald

statements that these petitioners were responsible for

harassing her, proceedings cannot go on against the

petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that there are specific allegations in the

complaint for which reason this Court should leave the case to

the trial Court to decide after full-fledged trial and accordingly,

prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. As seen from the complaint, the 2nd respondent was

living with her parents since two years prior to the complaint.

Even according to the complaint, the reason for staying with

her parents was harassment by A1 for additional dowry. On

13.04.2020, these petitioners allegedly went to the house of

the parents of the 2nd respondent where she was staying and

asked her to join A1 and continue marital life with A1.

However the 2nd respondent insisted that she would only settle

the issues in the presence of elders, for which reason these

petitioners angered by her response damaged the household

articles. In the melee when the neighbours came to the house,

these petitioners allegedly left.

6. There is no allegation that these petitioners at any point

of time abetted the alleged harassment by A1 nor the

petitioners have asked for any additional dowry. Not a single

incident is narrated wherein these petitioners have subjected

the 2nd respondent to cruelty. The incident that occurred on

13.04.2020 in the house of the 2nd respondent's parents is the

cause for implication of these petitioners. The petitioners are

admittedly relatives of the 2nd respondent and it is the case of

the 2nd respondent that these petitioners had allegedly gone

there to convince her to join with A1. It cannot be said that

when the 2nd respondent and her parents had no objection to

the petitioners' entry into their house, it cannot be said that it

amounts to criminal trespass. After discussing, it is the case of

the 2nd respondent that she insisted that there shall be

settlement in front of the elders, for which reason, these

petitioners allegedly ransacked and damaged the household

items. The description and any such household items which

were damaged by these petitioners is not stated. Neither the

details of the damage nor the articles were stated in the

complaint. Further, it is not specifically mentioned as to who

amongst the petitioners had committed any kind of mischief.

For the reason of the vagueness in the statements of witnesses

and in the background of the marital disputes in between the

2nd respondent and A1 whereby these petitioners have gone to

convince the 2nd respondent to join with A1, the case against

these petitioners cannot be continued. None of the ingredients

of either Sections 448, 427 and 498-A of IPC are made out

against these petitioners/A2 to A7.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Relying on the above judgments, the proceedings against

the petitioners/A2 to A7 are liable to be quashed.

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

to A7 in C.C.No.833 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judicial

First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri

District, are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.04.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022

Dt.18.04.2023

kvs