N.Shekar Reddy And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 773 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

       CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7156 and 7276 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

1.   Criminal Petition No.7156 of 2022 is filed       to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/A5 to A7 in C.C.No.197 of 2021

on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Sangareddy.

2.   Criminal Petition No.7276 of 2022 is filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in C.C.No.197 of 2021

on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Sangareddy.

3.   Petitioners in both the petitions, who are A2 to A7 are

aggrieved by the orders of the learned Magistrate directing the

issuance of summons, by taking cognizance against them on an

application made be the 2nd respondent.

4. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that she was married to A1

and at the time of marriage, demand was made for dowry, as such,

68 tulas of gold, Rs.24.00 lakhs cash, silver and other articles were

also given. Rs.20.00 lakhs was spent for performing the marriage.

After marriage, 2nd respondent joined husband and in-laws (A2 to

A4), who were staying in the same flat. A1 and petitioners/A2 to

A4 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally to

get additional dowry for settling certain civil disputes before the Lok

Adalat. A1 used to beat the 2nd respondent at the instance of these

petitioners to get properties from her father and since it was not

given, the harassment increased. On 31.01.2018, these petitioners

threatened to get additional dowry and since 2nd respondent

expressed inability, A1 threatened to kill with a licenced pistol and

she was necked out of the house at the instigation of these

petitioners.

5. Though the 2nd respondent tried to get back into the house

the doors were shut and she had to go to her parents' house. While

staying in her house, though several attempts were made by the

parents of the 2nd respondent to settle the issues, A1 and these

petitioners were adamant. Though the 2nd respondent narrated all

these facts before the police, the police filed final report deleting the

names of these petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd

respondent filed protest application and the learned Magistrate

having recorded the statements of the 2nd respondent and three

other witnesses passed the impugned order.

6. Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri T.Anirudhreddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the Magistrate had committed error

in taking cognizance and issuing summons to these petitioners.

Considering the compliant and other statements of witnesses, there

are vague and omnibus allegations that are leveled against these

petitioners, for which reason, the proceedings cannot be continued

and the same have to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would

submit that when there are clear allegations against these

petitioners/A2 to A7 and their names were also mentioned during

the course of investigation. The police have deliberately deleted the

names in the charge sheet in collusion with the petitioners. The

names of the petitioners have been specifically mentioned stating

that they were responsible in harassing the 2nd respondent and the

learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against them. The

petitioners have to face trial and prayed to dismiss the petitions.

8. The main ground on which the 2nd respondent sought to

prosecute the petitioners is that the police during the course of

investigation have colluded with these petitioners and concluded

that these petitioners did not inflict any kind of cruelty. The said

report of the police was on the basis of examination of two

witnesses, who are maid servant (L.W.6) and supervisor (L.W.7) of

Hill Apartments, Banjarahills, where the petitioners and A1 were

staying.

9. Counsel further argued that the Learned Magistrate found

that the 2nd respondent, father, mother and one Mogul Reddy, co-

brother of father of the 2nd respondent had clearly testified that A2

to A7 had harassed the 2nd respondent. However, their names were

deleted. The names of these petitioners were mentioned in the

statements made to the police, but the police committed error in

not filing the charge sheet against the petitioners. Accordingly, the

learned Magistrate having taken cognizance issued summons to the

petitioners/A2 to A7. As there is no infirmity in the order of the

Learned Magistrate, petitions have to be dismissed.

10. The events that are narrated by P.W.1 clearly make a mention

about A1 beating the 2nd respondent and deman for additional

dowry. The allegation as far as the petitioners 2 to 7 is concerned,

it is stated that these petitioners instigated A1 and also at the time

of marriage customary 'adapaduchu katnam' was given. The

narration in both Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and the

statements made before the Court at the time of protest petition

mentioned about the complicity of the petitioners on account of

their instigating A1. A2 and A3, parents-in-law and A1/husband

are responsible for the initial demand of dowry and subsequent

additional demand that was made.

11. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. Uttar

Pradesh1 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

continuation of proceedings against whom the specific instances of

harassment are not narrated, the same are liable to be quashed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State

of Haryana2 had cautioned the courts of innocent persons being

prosecuted with ulterior motive and the courts have the duty to

separate such individuals by scrutinizing the circumstances. In the

case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand3, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that in complaint of harassment,

there is a tendency of implicating the relatives of the husband

and for the said reason, the Hon'ble Supreme Court suggested

that necessary changes have to be made to the provisions of

law by appropriate legislation.

12. Prima facie case is made out against A2 and A3 parents

in law. This Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 in Crl.P.No.7276 of

(2012) 10 SCC 741

AIR 1998 SC 958

(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667

2022. However, insofar as A4 to A7 are concerned, omnibus

nature of allegations about being complicit of instigating A1

appears improbable and their names have been mentioned

only to make them accused to face criminal trial. Only for the

reason of naming the petitioners/A4 to A7 as the persons

responsible for instigating A1 would not suffice to permit

continuance of the criminal proceedings.

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

Bihar4, 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.

14. In view of the above judgments and also the nature of

omnibus allegations made against petitioners/A4 to A7, this

Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against them.

Before parting, the learned Magistrate having followed the

procedure passed the impugned order. However, there is no

mention of the penal provisions under which cognizance was

(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599

taken by the learned Magistrate in the order. In the said

circumstances of taking cognizance of a private compliant or

protest petition made by the complainant, it is imperative that

the Magistrates pass speaking orders and also denote the

basic ingredients that are attracted to make out an offence. It

is necessary that the penal provisions are also mentioned

while taking cognizance against the accused and issue

summons.

15. In the result, the proceedings against 3rd petitioner/A4 in

Crl.P.No.7276 of 2022 and petitioners 1 to 3/A5 to A7 in

Crl.P.No.7156 in C.C.No.197 of 2021 on the file of Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, are hereby

quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.7276 of 2022 is

allowed in part and Criminal Petition No.7156 of 2022 is

allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand disposed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.02.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7156 and 7276 of 2022

Dated 14.02.2023

kvs