Telangana High Court
Smt.Mamta Basu vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.11126 OF 2022
Between:
Smt.Mamta Basu and another ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.02.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Crl.P.No.11126 of 2022
% Dated 14.02.2023
# Smt.Mamta Basu and another ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi
^ Counsel for the Respondents:
1) Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
2) Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2022) 6 SCC 599
2
(2010) 7 SCC 667
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11126 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners/A2 & A3 to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.1004/2020 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy in
Cr.No.304/2020 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station. The
offences alleged against them are under Sections 498(A) of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent who is the wife of Accused No.1 filed a
complaint stating that she was married to Accused No.1 on
01.02.2018 at Kolkata and at the time of marriage her parents
gave gold jewellery, silver towards dowry. However, the husband
and parents-in-law started harassing her for additional dowry.
Accused No.1 did not lead a normal 'husband and wife' relation
and threatened to divorce her. Accused No.1 beat her whenever
she questioned his odd behavior. Aggrieved by the said conduct,
the 2nd respondent filed present complaint.
4. The police having registered the crime, investigated and
filed charge sheet against these petitioners and Accused No.1
for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that all the allegations are leveled against Accused No.1.
Except stating that these petitioners were abetting and
instigating Accused No.1 to ask for additional dowry and in turn
Accused No.1 allegedly beating her, there are no other
allegations against these petitioners. When the allegations in the
complaint are vague and omnibus in nature, the proceedings
against these petitioners have to be quashed. He also relied on
the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar1, wherein at
para-21 it is specifically held as follows;
"21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
(2022) 6 SCC 599
attributed to the appellant-accused, 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."
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that the complaint makes out specific allegations
against these petitioners and further in the reply notice
addressed to the Station House Officer, P.S.
Ramachandrapuram, Cyberabad, for the notice issued under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C., several details were narrated. In the said
reply notice, there are several details of harassment specifically
mentioned against these petitioners on several occasions. In
view of the said reply notice and allegations made therein, it
cannot be said that the allegations are vague as argued by the
counsel for petitioners. He further submits that during the
course of trial, the 2nd respondent would narrate all instances in
details for which reason, the prosecution cannot be quashed.
7. Having gone through the charge sheet, complaint and
statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the 2nd
respondent, it is alleged that these petitioners were instigating
Accused No.1 and in turn Accused No.1 used to beat the 2nd
respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that her
husband's behavior was inappropriate towards her and he was
a drunkard and several times her husband became aggressive
and hit her and behaved in rude manner.
8. In matrimonial cases, the events that transpire are
narrated to the Police by lodging a complaint or during
recording of statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It can be
inferred that the statement being at the earliest point of time,
such narration of events would be looked into by the Court to
infer harassment.
9. In the present case, both in the complaint and the
statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., except
stating that these petitioners instigated Accused No.1, no
specific instances are narrated. As argued by the learned
counsel that the 2nd respondent would narrate in detail during
the course of trial for which reason, the trial has to be
proceeded with, cannot be accepted.
10. This Court under inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. can come to a conclusion whether the criminal
proceedings have to be continued or not on the basis of
documents and statements filed under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The eventuality as stated by the learned counsel that
the 2nd respondent would narrate several instances what are not
stated in the statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
and the complaint, cannot be made basis to dismiss the petition
when apparently no specific allegations are made against these
petitioners. This Court would confine itself to the material
placed on record and cannot on an assumption that at a future
date the 2nd respondent would narrate several instances during
the course of trial, refuse the prayer for quashing the
proceedings.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, when there are no specific
allegations except a vague allegation made with regard to
instigation, following the dictum of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Kahkashan Kausar case (supra 1) and Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand2, this Court has no
(2010) 7 SCC 667
hesitation to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners/A2 & A3.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/A2 & A3 in
C.C.No.1004/2020 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy,
are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.02.2023
Note: Issue L.R. copy
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11126 of 2022
Dt. 14.02.2023
tk
