Telangana High Court
Mohammed Immadullah Khan vs State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2801 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners/A1, A2, A3 and A7 in C.C.No.14243 of 2019 on the file
of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that her marriage
with A1 was performed on 09.04.2018. It was informed that A1 was
working in Australia, having temporary resident visa and processing of
permanent resident was underway. At the time of marriage, dowry of
Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 15 tulas of gold and jahez articles were given. It is
further alleged that on the very first night of the marriage, A1
threatened that she would have to face several issues in the family.
Her husband and in-laws started harassing her physically and
mentally dissatisfied with the gold and jahez articles.
3. It is further alleged that all the in-laws have ill-treated her and
also removed the maid servant stating that she has to work in the
house and at the instance of parents-in-law and others, A1 used to
misbehave with her. Mother-in-law and sister-in-law took gold
ornaments and kept in their custody. Though the 2nd respondent was
informed that she would be permitted to do job after marriage,
however, she was restricted from doing any job and had to do
household work. Due to the continuous harassment, she suffered
serious mental trauma. Though she was admitted in the hospital with
gynecological problems, the husband and relatives never visited her in
the hospital. On 15.08.2018 and 30.08.2018, there was a quarrel in
the house on petty issues. The husband and relatives started
insisting that the 2nd respondent should take khula divorce, which
means that the wife has to give divorce to her husband in accordance
with Muslim Personal law.
4. On account of continuous harassment, the 2nd respondent filed a
criminal complaint and the same was registered and investigated by
the police. After investigation, chare sheet was filed for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act vide C.C No.14243 of 2019.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
divorce in between A1 and the 2nd respondent had taken place on
19.02.2019 whereas, the complaint was filed two months thereafter
12.04.2019. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
((2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 398), quashed the prosecution on
the ground that the husband had divorced his wife and thereafter,
complaint was filed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that the complaint is given in detail and all
the allegations made are required to be proved in trial and at the
threshold, prosecution cannot be quashed.
7. In the judgment of Mohammad Miyan's case cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that
since divorce had happened 4 ½ years prior to lodging the complaint
offence under Section 498-A of IPC would not be attracted. The facts
narrated in the said judgment are not applicable to the present facts.
The complaint specifically narrates several instances of A1 harassing
the 2nd respondent. However, in the case of other accused, though
complaint runs into six pages and what all she stated against other
accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 are that they were treating her as servant
maid and also instigating A1, who in turn misbehaved and harassed
the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent stated that the jehaz
articles and jewelry were in the custody of accused, no such details of
the articles or the jewelry is mentioned. Further the complaint is made
two months after the divorce.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases
599], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such vague and omnibus
allegations against the relatives of the husband cannot be made basis
to continue criminal prosecution against them. In the said
circumstances, the prayer of A1 is liable to be dismissed. However, the
proceedings against A2, A3 and A7, against whom general and vague
allegations are made, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
proceedings.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition against A1 is dismissed. The
proceedings against A2, A3 and A7 in C.C.No.14243 of 2019 on the file
of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.02.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2801 OF 2021
Date:14.02.2023
kvs
