Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Amgoth Sivaram Prasad Naik vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1146 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1146 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2023

Telangana High Court
Amgoth Sivaram Prasad Naik vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4836 & 10581 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:

1.    Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in Criminal Petition No.4836

of 2022 and Petitioner/A1 in Criminal Petition No. 10581 of 2022

are the parents-in-law and husband respectively being prosecuted

in the same case, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of

by way of this Common Order.


2.    It is the case of 2nd respondent that she was married to A1 on

18th March, 2017 at Kothagudem Town and at the time of marriage

Rs.24.00 lakhs worth stridhan was given. Immediately after

marriage the 2nd respondent noticed that the attitude of her

husband changed and every day he used to spend time with his

friends and come late in the night. When questioned, the husband

insisted that Rs.30.00 lakhs additional dowry should be given to

cohabit with her. On 3rd April, 2017 he left for Germany without

taking the 2nd respondent. Later the 2nd Respondent went to

Germany and joined A1. In Germany also the husband and the 2nd

respondent did not lead normal marital life, however on 3rd

December 2017, A1 beat the 2nd respondent, took her jewelry and

sent her to India.

3. Aggrieved by the harassment of her husband and in-laws

demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs, the 2nd respondent

filed a written complaint with the police on 26th February, 2021.

Having registered the said complaint, police concluded

investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the 2nd respondent has filed for divorce and also case under

the DVC Act. There is material suppression of facts by the 2nd

respondent about the agreement that was entered into in between

A1 and the 2nd respondent on 25th December 2017. In accordance

with the said agreement Rs.32.00 lakhs was agreed to be given to

the 2nd respondent out of which an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs were

deposited into the account of the 2nd respondent. Suppressing the

said issue and settlement in between the parties, false complaint

was made by the 2nd respondent only to harass the husband and

her in-laws. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal [(1991) 2 SCJ

351].

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd

respondent that though there was an agreement, the petitioners

failed to adhere to the conditions of the agreement and since there

was continuous harassment both in India and also when she joined

the husband in Germany, proceedings cannot be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the agreement dated

25th December 2017 and also proof of depositing Rs.15.00 lakhs

into complainant's account. The complaint filed under the DVC Act

and also the divorce petition are filed along with the material

papers. As seen from the petitions filed for the maintenance and

also divorce, the main allegation appears to be that the A1 is

impotent. The 2nd respondent requested the Family Court to grant

divorce on the basis of impotency of A1.

7. The 2nd respondent had deliberately suppressed the allegation

of

A-1 not able to lead a normal marital life for the reason of

impotency. Further the agreement that was entered into in between

the parties on 25th December 2017 and also taking an amount of

Rs.15.00 lakhs for the purpose of filing an application by the 2nd

respondent were suppressed. The main allegation in the DVC

complaint and also the divorce application filed by the 2nd

respondent is that A1 was impotent and the marriage never

consummated. The differences that arose in between the spouses

was for the reason of the alleged impotency of A1. The said fact is

also suppressed by the 2nd respondent in the complaint and the

investigation does not reveal that it was mentioned either by the 2nd

respondent or any of the relatives of the 2nd respondent that A1 was

impotent. However the criminal complaint reads that for the reason

of demand of Rs.30.00 lakhs additional dowry, A1 did not lead

marital life with the 2nd respondent. Both the versions are

contradictory. Except stating that demand of Rs.30.00 lakhs was

made by petitioners in India and also in Germany, there is no other

allegation.

8. As claimed by the 2nd respondent, if the main allegation is

impotecy of A1, unable to lead normal life with the 2nd respondent,

the question of demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs is

highly improbable. Further, the agreement which was entered into

on 25.12.2017 specifically states that A1 cannot perform sexual

acts. It is further mentioned that both the parties have agreed to

cancel their marriage and obtain divorce. There are seven

witnesses who are parties to the said agreement. As already stated

when the parties have determined to end their marriage and the 2nd

respondent accepting an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs as permanent

alimony and having received part of the amount, the allegation that

the petitioners were harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.30.00

lakhs cannot be believed.

9. Both for the reasons of suppressing material facts in the

complainant and also the improbability of the allegations made in

the complaint regarding demand of additional dowry, this Court

deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings. However, it is

informed to the Court that the remaining balance in accordance

with the MOU entered to in between the parties would be paid. The

said aspect is also considered by this Court. Learned counsel for

the petitioner would submit that the remaining balance would be

paid within a period of eight weeks.

10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6

in C.C.No.807 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.03.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.P.Nos.4836 and 10581 of 2022

Dated: 10.03.2023

kvs

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter