Telangana High Court
Rakesh Nehru Inupakolla vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1605 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners/A1 to A5 to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.334 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that she was
earlier married to one Ram Kumar in the year 2006 and they
were blessed with a girl by name Sai Praneetha. The 2nd
respondent was working as an Engineer in IBM and the 1st
petitioner/A1 who was also working in the same office used to
move closely with her. When the 2nd respondent's husband Ram
Kumar started harassing her, the 1st petitioner/A1 started
influencing 2nd respondent to take divorce from her husband
Ram Kumar and assured her to take care of her and her child.
During the year 2014, the petitioners have allegedly met the 2nd
respondent and apologized for A1's interference in her marital
life. On account of the constant harassment by Ram Kumar,
they went for mutual consent divorce. Thereafter, proposal for
marriage of A1 was made and the marriage of 2nd respondent
with A1 was performed on 24.03.2018. Both of them went to
Kulu for one week, where the 2nd respondent came to know that
A1 was unfit to participate in sexual intercourse. During
August, 2018 both 2nd respondent and her daughter went to
London, stayed in London till October, 2019. During her stay in
London, 1st petitioner proposed to purchase a plot situated at
Ameenpur, for which the 2nd respondent paid Rs.10 lakhs as
advance and also paid the balance sale consideration for
purchase of the said plot. Thereafter, A1 started avoiding her.
On 26.10.2020 when the 2nd respondent went to A1's house, A1
refused to acknowledge the 2nd respondent as his wife. The
other petitioners also abused her in foul language and sent her
out of the house. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent stated that only
to purchase the property, A1 had planned marriage. It is also
alleged that without her consent the plot was registered in the
name of A1.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that there are absolutely no ingredients which are made out
against the petitioners to prosecute them criminally for the
offences alleged. Even according to the complaint, the 2nd
respondent was staying along with her daughter in London and
she never stayed with A1 or his family members, accordingly
prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would
submit that it is specifically alleged in the complaint that she
was married to A1, however the other petitioners disagreed to
acknowledge the 2nd respondent as the wife of A1 for which
reason cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC is
made out.
6. He relied on the Judgments rendered by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and others v.
Monica and others 1; Banhisikha Roy vs. Somnath Roy and
(2014) 3 SCC 383
others 2 and Suhas Kiran Bhaskar Singapogu and others
v. State of T.S and others 3.
7. The marriage of 2nd respondent with A1 is not in dispute.
Further, the 2nd respondent herself claims that she was living in
London along with her daughter. When the 2nd respondent went
to the house of A1, it is alleged that the petitioners have
threatened her for additional dowry and pushed her out from
the house by saying that their marriage was not valid.
8. The sole incident which happened on 26.10.2020 cannot
be made basis to prosecute the petitioners 2 to 5. Even
assuming that petitioners have stated that the marriage was
invalid and asked her to leave house, it is the result of the 2nd
respondent staying at London for more than a year and A1 had
not accompanied her. In the present facts of the case, when the
2nd respondent lived in London and on the day she came back to
the marital house, the petitioners 2 to 5 threatened her stating
that marriage was invalid, will not amount to offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the peculiar facts of
the case, the allegation that the petitioners 2 to 5 had
(2005) 12 SCC 500
MANU/TL/2025/2022
demanded for dowry cannot be believed. PW2 was an
independent woman who stayed in London along with her
daughter for a period of one year and was also working. The
bald allegation that the petitioners 2 to 5 have harassed for
additional dowry in the present facts of the case, cannot be
believed.
9. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the
petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 cannot be permitted to continue.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the
proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.334 of
2022 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Kukatpally. However, the Court shall proceed against Accused
No.1.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.04.2023
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1605 OF 2023
Dt. 25.04.2023
tk
