Telangana High Court
Gopi Reddy Krishna Reddy And ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4194 OF 2020
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1524 of 2020 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad.
2. The 2nd respondent, who is the wife of A1 filed complaint
stating that she was married to A1 and at the time of marriage,
Rs.10.00 lakhs cash and 30 tulas of gold was given towards dowry.
She lead marital life along with A1 for sometime. Thereafter, A1
started harassing her physically and mentally on trivial issues. The
other family members, who are the parents-in-law and also the 1st
petitioner/A6, who is distant relative of the father-in-law and the
2nd petitioner/A7 is also distant relative have together harassed her
physically and mentally. She was sent out of the house on
14.10.2019. Having no other option, she started living with her
parents. Basing on the said complaint, police filed charge sheet for
the offence under Section 498-A of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC and
also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that apart from the allegations that all the relatives have harassed
her physically and mentally, not even a single instance is narrated
as to how these petitioners have harassed her. In support of his
contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State
of Bihar1, wherein it is held as follows:
"22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances
and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused
appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the
complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant would submit that it is clearly
mentioned in the complaint that these petitioners, who are relatives
of her father-in-law also harassed her physically and mentally. The
said averment will suffice to infer an offence under Section 498-A of
IPC. Accordingly, petitioners have to undergo criminal trial. For the
said reason, petition has to be dismissed.
5. As seen from the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C
statement, the only allegation that is made by naming these
petitioners is that they were also responsible for harassing her
[(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599]
physically and mentally. Apart from the said omnibus allegations,
there is no instance or event that is narrated to state that these
petitioners have at any point of time harassed the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant.
6. Following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar
(supra), this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings
against these petitioners.
7. In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners/A6
and A7 in C.C.No.1524 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Kodad are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.02.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4194 OF 2020
Dt. 10.02.2023
kvs
