Telangana High Court
Kummara Ravindra Kummar Ravindra ... vs The State Of Telangana on 20 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No. 574 of 2017, on the file of XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent on
24.07.2015 alleging that the 1st petitioner is the husband and
petitioners 2 and 3 are parents-in-law. Their marriage took
place on 27.10.2001 and on 25.12.2004, 2nd respondent gave
birth to a daughter. In the year 2006, she was transferred to
City Bank, Chennai Branch, Madras. She was harassed to get
Rs.10.00 lakhs for purchase of flat.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the Family Court Judge at Hyderabad by order
dated 21.10.2013 in FCOP No.573 of 2013 granted divorce to
the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. An attempt was made
before the Family Court to set aside the exparte divorce orders.
However, the Family Court, by order dated 17.03.2016 refused
to entertain the application to set aside the exparte order.
Even prior to the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Transfer
Petition (C) No.1093 of 2012 requesting the court to transfer
the proceedings. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
transferred the proceedings from Family Court Chennai to
Family Court at Hyderabad. Though the divorce petition was
transferred at 2nd Respondent's instance, she did not
prosecute the same and divorce was granted.
4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Miyan v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. In the said case, the
wife filed criminal case which was registered for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC and also
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was
filed four years after the divorce had taken place. Taking into
consideration that there was divorce by the time of filing the
complaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the quash
petition.
Criminal Appeal No.1048 of 2018, dated 21.08.2018
5. On behalf of the Respondents it was argued that the
divorce was an ex-parte order and cannot be made basis to
quash the proceedings. Further the prosecution has to be
given an opportunity to make out its case by adducing
evidence during trial, for which reasons, the petition has to be
dismissed.
6. In the present case, vague allegation against these
petitioners is that there was demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Apart
from the said allegation, there are no other allegations to
substantiate that any offence is made out under Section 498-A
IPC. Further the complaint was lodged after an year of
divorce. The question of demanding money after divorce is
highly improbable.
7. The allegation of mere demand made in the complaint,
without any consequent physical or mental harassment, does
not fall within the meaning of 'cruelty' as defined under
Section 498-A of IPC. In the present circumstances, this Court
deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
8. In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners in
C.C.No. 574 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
9. Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous
applications pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall
stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 20.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 of 2022
Date: 20.01.2023
kvs
