Telangana High Court
K.Sharada vs The State Of Telangana on 20 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11096 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner in P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.
2. The petitioner who is arrayed as A3, filed the present petition
questioning her implication in the above case filed for the offences
under Sections 304-B of IPC.
3. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, his deceased daughter
was married to A1 after they informed them and parents of A1 that
they were in love and they intend to marry. Marriage was
solemnized on 08.03.2018. At the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/-
cash and gold etc., were given towards dowry. The deceased joined
A1 at his house in Srinivasnagar Colony, Nagaram. For some time,
they led peaceful marital life. However, A1 and A2 started harassing
the deceased for additional dowry. According to the investigation,
this petitioner, who is resident of USA was making phone calls to
A1 and instigated A1 to harass the deceased. The 2nd respondent
and others knowing about the harassment, tried to pacify A1 and
A2, but there was no change in the attitude of A1 and A2. On
21.02.2021, the deceased sent whatsapp message to her father
stating that A1 was money minded person and expecting amount
from her parents. Further he was passing comments against her.
Vexed with such conduct of A1, deceased committed suicide on
21.02.2021 by jumping from roof top of a building.
4. Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against A1
and A2 and for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. This
petitioner was shown as absconding
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
allegation against this petitioner is that she had made phone calls
to A1 and instigated him to harass the deceased. On the basis of
such bald allegation of making phone calls, the prosecution cannot
be continued. In support of his contention, he relied on the
judgments reported in the case of i)State of Haryana v. Bajanlal
reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335; ii) Pepsi Foods
Limited and another v. The Special Judicial Magistrate and
others [(1998) 5 SCC 749]; iii) S.W.Palnikar V. State of Bihar
reported in 2002(1) SCC 241) and sought intervention of this Court
in quashing the proceedings on the ground of there being no case
made against this petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent filed counter stating that this petitioner was the person
who had instigated A1 and A2 to harass the deceased. Though, she
was staying in USA, this petitioner instigated A1 and A2 by making
whatsapp video calls to get rid of the deceased. He relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh
v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.1731 of 2010) and argued
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that dowry harassment is
a crime dangerous to the society, where women are subjected to
cruelty by greedy and selfish husband and in-laws. He further
argued that there is nexus in between the death and harassment
meted out to the deceased.
7. As seen from the record, at no point of time did this petitioner
either confront the defacto complainant or the deceased in any
manner. The only allegation is that she was making phone calls to
A1 and A2 and in the process instigating them to harass the
deceased. In the complaint and statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C, an omnibus allegation is made against this petitioner that
she was physically and mentally harassing the deceased, though
she was in U.S.A.
8. The allegation that she was making phone calls to A1 and A2
and instigating them to harass the deceased is an assumption of
the police and also the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that at no
point of time did this petitioner in any manner either assaulted or
indulged in any oral abuse or demand any amount either from the
deceased or the 2nd respondent. On the basis of vague allegation
that she was complicit in the offence of abetting suicide by making
phone calls to A1 and A2, such vague allegations cannot be made
basis to continue with the criminal prosecution.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599]
held that in all such cases of harassment under Sections 498-A,
306 and 304-B of IPC, there is growing tendency to implead the
relatives of the husband on the basis of vague and bald allegations.
In the present case, except stating that the petitioner was calling
from the US, there are no other allegations, for which reason, this
Court finds that continuation of the proceedings against this
petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court. No useful purpose
would be served to the prosecution by allowing the petitioner to
continue with criminal trial.
10. In the result, the proceedings against petitioner in P.R.C.No.2
of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:20.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.11096 OF 2022
Date: 20.01.2023
kvs
