Telangana High Court
Porika Jadhav Naik And 3 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another on 10 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10509 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.6894 of 2022 on the file of I
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri at Kukatpally.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that she was married to the 1st
petitioner/A1 on 15.05.2019 and at the time of marriage Rs.2.50
lakhs cash, 20 tulas of gold, open plot at Ghatkesar were given as
dowry and marriage was performed by spending huge amounts. The
2nd respondent gave birth to a daughter. The 1st petitioner was
suspecting her character and was quarrelling on petty issues and
harassing her physically and mentally for money. She conceived
within three months of marriage but the husband and in-laws
pressurized her to go in for abortion. The 2nd respondent has to stay at
her parental home and was not permitted to stay in A1's house.
Though she tried to change the petitioners herein, there was no use
and the harassment continued, for which reason, complaint was filed
after A1 threatened that he would not mend his ways and she can do
whatever she wants. Written complaint was filed on 27.06.2022, which
was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, police filed charge
sheet for the said offences.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
a false case is filed by the 2nd respondent. In fact the 2nd respondent
was harassing A1 by calling him as impotent person in front of his
relatives and also harassed the petitioners 2 to 4 for no reason. The 4th
petitioner was married by the date of marriage of A1 and working as
Doctor. She was living separately at Karmanghat area of Hyderabad.
4. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] and also in the case
of Sarang Diwaker Amle v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal
Application No.40 of 2021, dated 21.10.2022), wherein the High Court
of Bombay held that mere use of word 'mental and physical
harassment' would not attract an offence under Section 498-A IPC.
5. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that specific allegations are made against all the
petitioners and there is no reason why false complaint would be filed
by the 2nd respondent. All the allegations leveled are subject matter of
trial and this Court cannot quash the proceedings at the threshold.
6. I have gone through the investigation and the statements of
witnesses. Differences are in between A1 and the 2nd respondent. The
2nd respondent is a working woman and employed in Railway
department. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioners 2
and 3 were harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally for
additional dowry. Apart from the said allegation, there is nothing
specific about any incident or event that is narrated by the 2nd
respondent to find that there was harassment by the petitioners 2 to
4. Stating that she was severely harassed for additional dowry and
petitioners 2 to 4 were involving in their matrimonial disputes and
harassing her will not suffice to continue the prosecution insofar as
petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned.
7. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar
[(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], 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.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State
of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the
Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and
circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living
in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.
9. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners /A2 to A4 in
C.C.No.6894 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri at
Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against A1
shall continue.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:10 .01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.10509 OF 2022
Date:10 .01.2023
kvs
