Telangana High Court
Mohammed Hannan vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10512 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.526 of 2022 on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kodad.
2. The 2nd respondent/wife of petitioner/A1 herein filed a
complaint stating that her marriage with the A1 was performed on
14.07.2017. At the time of marriage, Rs.20.00 lakhs cash, 20 tulas
gold and other articles were also given. On 13.08.2017, both of
them went to Zambia from Hyderabad and since her brother-in-law
died, she came back to Hyderabad on 25.08.2017. Again they went
back to Zambia and started living there. The 2nd respondent was
harassed for additional dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs. Though she was
pregnant on 21.02.2018, she was sent back to Hyderabad. On
21.06.2018, the 2nd respondent delivered a male child and after
delivery, husband and husband's relatives harassed her physically
and mentally for additional dowry. Though several attempts were
made to communicate with A1/petitioner, there was no reply. For
the said reason, complaint was filed after futile attempts to settle
the issues with elders.
3. The police filed charge sheet after investigation against this
petitioner/husband/A1 and 7 other relatives for the offences under
Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that no criminal offence is made out even according to the
complaint. All the allegations of harassment are at Zambia and
except making bald allegations that she was harassed, there are no
other instances that are narrated to infer any kind of harassment
by the husband. Admittedly, the petitioner/A1 was living in Zambia
most of the time and after she had come back from Zambia, she
started living with her parents after birth of the child.
5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd
respondent that there are specific allegations for demand of
additional dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs, for which reason, the
proceedings should go on. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
relied upon the judgments in the case of i) Hajera Hajira Fatima v.
State of Telangana (2021 LawSuit(TS) 192; ii) Kuranma Anand
Prakash v. State of Telangana (2021(1) ALD (Crl.) 80 (TS).
6. It is the specific allegation that she was subjected to
harassment by the petitioner/husband/A1 at Zambia also for
additional dowry. Though omnibus allegations are made against
Accused Nos.2 to 7, as far as this petitioner is concerned, who is
the husband, narration of the 2nd respondent that she was harassed
at Zambia for additional dowry cannot be ignored. Section 498-A of
IPC is continuing offence. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the
respondent had sent her from Zambia for delivery and thereafter,
she was not taken back for the reason of not fulfilling the demand
of additional dowry that was demanded according to the 2nd
respondent. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.02.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10512 OF 2022
Date:14.02.2023
kvs
