Mudavath Puramdas M Sai ... vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 224 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.4833 OF 2021
ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in Charge Sheet No.53 of

2019 registered as P.R.C No.9 of 2019 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

2. The petitioners are parents-in-law of the deceased. The

2nd respondent is the father of the deceased, who lodged a

complaint stating that his deceased daughter's marriage was

performed with A1 on 25.05.2011 and dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs,

15 tulas of gold, and other articles were given. The deceased

started living with her husband at Hyderabad and they were

blessed with a son on 20.04.2012. At the time of cradle

ceremony of the son, there was demand for additional dowry.

On the eve of Deepavali festival also, the deceased daughter

and others came to the house and it was informed by the

deceased that the in-laws were demanding for additional

dowry. The said demand of additional dowry was again made

at the time of Ugadi festival. One lakh rupees was paid as

additional dowry. Again on 08.05.2014, A1 and all accused

demanded for Rs.3.00 lakhs for purchasing car and informed

that if the said amount was not given they would not take

back the deceased. The deceased confronted A1 about demand

of Rs.3.00 lakhs and A1 grew wild and dragged the deceased

into the bath room and forcibly made her to consume acid. As

the deceased was found lying in bath room in an unconscious

state, she was shifted to Hospital. All the accused pacified the

2nd respondent not to lodge complaint as they would take care

of the medical expenses of his daughter. However, the

expenses were not met by the accused as promised and the

condition of the deceased deteriorated, for which reason a

complaint was lodged on 19.07.2014. On 20.07.2014, the

deceased died and section of law was altered and after

investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that there is a delay of nearly 69 days in lodging the

complaint after the alleged incident of A1 forcibly making the

deceased consume acid. A statement was recorded on

11.05.2014 by Constable at Apollo Hospital, wherein the 2nd

respondent stated that on 08.04.2014, the deceased came to

their house at Mahabunagar to attend function. Her daughter

was suffering with ill-health and was upset. On 10.05.2014,

when the family members were present in the hall, the

deceased went into the wash room and came out vomiting, for

which reason, she was initially shifted to S.S Nursing Home

and later shifted to Apollo Hospital. Even according to the

medical record, there were no external injuries on the face or

any part of the body to substantiate beating by A1 and making

deceased to forcibly consume acid. In the said circumstances,

it is apparent that a false case has been cooked up against A1

and others when the deceased consumed acid in her house at

Mahabubnagar. Finally, it was argued that A4 and A5 filed

application vide CRLP.No.6427 of 2019 and this Court by

order dated 15.10.2019 allowed the same and quashed the

proceedings against A4 and A5.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioners relied on the following judgments: i) Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6

Supreme Court Cases 599]; ii) Preeti Gupta v. State of

Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667]; iii) State of

Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 Supreme

Court Cases 582]; iv) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana[(2021)

6 SCC 1]; v) Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra [AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622]; vi) State of

West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and others [2020(1) ALD

(Crl.) 185 (SC); vii) Girish Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [AIR

2019 Supreme Court 4529].

5. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot enter into

the correctness or otherwise of the allegations leveled against

the accused. However, on the basis of the allegations, if the

said allegations do not make out any offence, this Court under

inherent powers can quash the proceedings.

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

Bihar (supra) 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.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta

v. State of Jharkhand (supra) 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.

8. In the present case, an omnibus allegation is made that

all the accused demanded for additional dowry at the time of

Ugadi, Deepavali and Dasara festivals. Except stating that

there was such demand, there are no instances that are

against these petitioners, who are parents-in-law that they

have in any manner assaulted or abused the deceased to fulfill

such demand. Unless there is evidence by giving specific

instances that consequent to unlawful demand for additional

dowry, the deceased was either ill-treated or harassed or

physically abused, it cannot be said that mere demand would

fall within the definition of cruelty. As observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v.

State of Bihar (supra) and also in Preeti Gupta v. State of

Jharkhand's case (supra), the Courts have to be vigilant in

permitting the prosecution of the relatives of the husband,

since there is tendency of false implication on the basis of

vague or omnibus allegations.

9. As already discussed above, the allegations made against

these petitioners are omnibus in nature stating that they have

demanded for additional dowry. In the said circumstances,

relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

regarding prosecuting the relatives of the husband, this Court

deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2

and A3 in Charge Sheet No.53 of 2019 registered as P.R.C

No.9 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar, are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:18.01.2023 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.4833 OF 2021

Date:18.01.2023

kvs